Filed: Oct. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6948 SAMMY JUNIOR MORGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. F. JENKINS; KENNETH LASSITER; RICK ANDERSON; LARRY B. TEELE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03197-BO) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6948 SAMMY JUNIOR MORGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. F. JENKINS; KENNETH LASSITER; RICK ANDERSON; LARRY B. TEELE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03197-BO) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dism..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6948
SAMMY JUNIOR MORGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
F. JENKINS; KENNETH LASSITER; RICK ANDERSON; LARRY B. TEELE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03197-BO)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sammy Junior Morgan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Junior Morgan appeals the district court’s order
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. Morgan v.
Jenkins, No. 5:09-ct-03197-BO (E.D.N.C. June 23, 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.
DISMISSED
2