Filed: Aug. 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6228 CURTIS D. SHULER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN N. VAUGHN, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03088-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis D. Shuler, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6228 CURTIS D. SHULER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN N. VAUGHN, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03088-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis D. Shuler, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6228
CURTIS D. SHULER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN N. VAUGHN,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-ct-03088-BO)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis D. Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis D. Shuler appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Shuler v. Vaughn, No. 5:08-ct-03088-BO (E.D.N.C.
Jan. 15, 2010). 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