Filed: Apr. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7738 LLOYD STEVEN LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; JEWYL E. DUNN; REGINA BROOKS; CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00212-H) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7738 LLOYD STEVEN LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; JEWYL E. DUNN; REGINA BROOKS; CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00212-H) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7738 LLOYD STEVEN LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA H. BAKER; JEWYL E. DUNN; REGINA BROOKS; CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00212-H) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Steven Lane, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd Steven Lane appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lane v. Baker, No. 5:05-ct-00212-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 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 -
