Filed: Jun. 15, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7209 JAMES EDWARD MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:99-cv-00050) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7209 JAMES EDWARD MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:99-cv-00050) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7209 JAMES EDWARD MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:99-cv-00050) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mason Thomas, PATRICK, HARPER & DIXON, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint upon remand from this court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Pierce, No. 5:99-cv-00050 (W.D.N.C. June 28, 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 -
