Filed: Jan. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7392 VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00461-WLO) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Marce
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7392 VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00461-WLO) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Marcel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7392 VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00461-WLO) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vance Marcel Gibson appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss without prejudice Gibson’s motion for the return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gibson v. United States, No. 1:06-cv-00461-WLO (M.D.N.C. July 26, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
