Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7451 TORRENCE D. CROUELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. REED; C/O FOUNTAIN; ASST. SUPT. F. TAYLOR; FEMALE LIEUTENANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03239-BO) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7451 TORRENCE D. CROUELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. REED; C/O FOUNTAIN; ASST. SUPT. F. TAYLOR; FEMALE LIEUTENANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03239-BO) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7451
TORRENCE D. CROUELL, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. REED; C/O FOUNTAIN; ASST. SUPT. F. TAYLOR; FEMALE
LIEUTENANT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03239-BO)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Torrence D. Crouell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Torrence D. Crouell, Sr., appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint,
and denying his motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Crouell v. Reed,
No. 5:13-ct-03239-BO (E.D.N.C. June 2, 2014; Sept. 15, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2