Filed: Jan. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1507 PAUL A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JAMES C. DEVER, III; PHILIP A. BADDOUR, JR.; JOSHUA M. KRASNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00399-H) Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1507 PAUL A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JAMES C. DEVER, III; PHILIP A. BADDOUR, JR.; JOSHUA M. KRASNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00399-H) Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1507 PAUL A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JAMES C. DEVER, III; PHILIP A. BADDOUR, JR.; JOSHUA M. KRASNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00399-H) Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul A. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul A. Mitchell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mitchell v. Traxler, No. 5:15-cv-00399-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2016). We further deny Mitchell’s motion for a restraining order. 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
