Filed: Jul. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1404 HERBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KIMBRELL KELLY TUCKER, District Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-cv-00186-FL) Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1404 HERBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KIMBRELL KELLY TUCKER, District Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-cv-00186-FL) Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1404 HERBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KIMBRELL KELLY TUCKER, District Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-cv-00186-FL) Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: July 30, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herbert Hayes 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. Hayes v. Tucker, No. 5:07-cv-00186-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2008). 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 -
