Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7613 MATTHEW JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NC; NC ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE; IREDELL COUNTY; IREDELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; IREDELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT WILLIAM BYRD; DETECTIVE CLARENCE HARRIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00123-FDW) Submitted:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7613 MATTHEW JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NC; NC ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE; IREDELL COUNTY; IREDELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; IREDELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT WILLIAM BYRD; DETECTIVE CLARENCE HARRIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00123-FDW) Submitted: ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7613
MATTHEW JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NC; NC ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE; IREDELL COUNTY;
IREDELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; IREDELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT WILLIAM BYRD; DETECTIVE CLARENCE
HARRIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00123-FDW)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Johnson 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. Johnson
v. North Carolina, No. 5:15-cv-00123-FDW (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1,
2015). 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