Filed: Jul. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6362 DARRYL BOYD ADKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. C/O MCDONALD; C/O WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03169-F) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Boyd Adkins, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6362 DARRYL BOYD ADKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. C/O MCDONALD; C/O WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03169-F) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Boyd Adkins, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6362
DARRYL BOYD ADKINS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
C/O MCDONALD; C/O WHITE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03169-F)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl Boyd Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. Vanessa N. Totten,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Boyd Adkins appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Adkins v. McDonald, No. 5:14-ct-03169-F
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2016). 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