Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6288 LAMONT DELMAR PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF JAMES KNIGHT; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR G. BULLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03095-D) Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6288 LAMONT DELMAR PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF JAMES KNIGHT; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR G. BULLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03095-D) Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6288
LAMONT DELMAR PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF JAMES KNIGHT; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR G. BULLOCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03095-D)
Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Baxter Bradburn,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Delmar Parker appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Knight, No.
5:10-ct-03095-D (E.D.N.C. May 6, 2011). 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