Filed: Aug. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6280 WILLIAM CARAWAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent; STEPHEN BIRD, Correctional Chaplain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00577-FDW) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6280 WILLIAM CARAWAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent; STEPHEN BIRD, Correctional Chaplain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00577-FDW) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6280 WILLIAM CARAWAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent; STEPHEN BIRD, Correctional Chaplain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00577-FDW) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Carawan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Carawan, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Appellees and denying Carawan’s motion to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carawan v. Mitchell, No. 3:16-cv-00577-FDW (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26 & Mar. 7, 2018). 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
