Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7355 JOE JR. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BEATRICE GREEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03081-H) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Jr. Williams, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7355 JOE JR. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BEATRICE GREEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03081-H) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Jr. Williams, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7355
JOE JR. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BEATRICE GREEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03081-H)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Jr. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Kevin Robbins,
Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Jr. Williams appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Williams v. Green, No. 5:14-ct-03081-H (E.D.N.C.
Aug. 21, 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