Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7453 MICHAEL MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIKE RUFFIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00372-JAB-PTS) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeill, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7453 MICHAEL MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIKE RUFFIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00372-JAB-PTS) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeill, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7453 MICHAEL MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIKE RUFFIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00372-JAB-PTS) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael McNeill appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. McNeill v. Ruffin, No. 1:09-cv-00372-JAB-PTS (M.D.N.C. July 31, 2009). 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. DISMISSED 2
