Filed: Mar. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7354 JAMES A. POWELL; WILLIAM BAGGETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.; MARY STEVENS; VAN FRIZZELLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03296-FL) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7354 JAMES A. POWELL; WILLIAM BAGGETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.; MARY STEVENS; VAN FRIZZELLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03296-FL) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7354
JAMES A. POWELL; WILLIAM BAGGETT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.; MARY STEVENS; VAN FRIZZELLE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03296-FL)
Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Powell and William Baggett, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Powell and William Baggett appeal the district court’s order dismissing
their 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 deny their
motions to appoint counsel and to hold an evidentiary hearing and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Powell v. Butler, No. 5:16-ct-03296-FL (E.D.N.C. July 25,
2017 & Oct. 10, 2017). 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