Filed: Mar. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6019 OTTIS MCGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON DAVID, District Attorney; IRINE G. RIEL, Prosecutor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03079-BO) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6019 OTTIS MCGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON DAVID, District Attorney; IRINE G. RIEL, Prosecutor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03079-BO) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6019
OTTIS MCGILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON DAVID, District Attorney; IRINE G. RIEL, Prosecutor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:16-ct-03079-BO)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ottis McGill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ottis McGill appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice * 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. McGill v. David, No. 5:15-ct-03079-
BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 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
* We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
807
F.3d 619, 623–24, 629–30 (4th Cir. 2015).
2