Filed: Jul. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6046 ARNOLD EUGENE FOX, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EVA SHARP; CHRYSTAL MCCORMICK; JOHN MCCORMICK; OTHER UNNAMED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00270-MR-DLH) Submitted: June 22, 2016 Decided: July 1, 2016 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6046 ARNOLD EUGENE FOX, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EVA SHARP; CHRYSTAL MCCORMICK; JOHN MCCORMICK; OTHER UNNAMED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00270-MR-DLH) Submitted: June 22, 2016 Decided: July 1, 2016 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6046
ARNOLD EUGENE FOX, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EVA SHARP; CHRYSTAL MCCORMICK; JOHN MCCORMICK; OTHER UNNAMED
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00270-MR-DLH)
Submitted: June 22, 2016 Decided: July 1, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnold Eugene Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arnold Eugene Fox, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Fox v. Sharp, No. 1:15-cv-00270-MR-DLH
(W.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 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