Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Samuel Wayne Guy v. Morris Bedsole Anne Campbell Cumberland County, North Carolina, 92-6793 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6793 Visitors: 67
Filed: Jan. 29, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 985 F.2d 553 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Samuel Wayne GUY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morris BEDSOLE; Anne Campbell; Cumberland County, North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6793. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: December 29, 1992 Decided: J
More

985 F.2d 553

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Samuel Wayne GUY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Morris BEDSOLE; Anne Campbell; Cumberland County, North
Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6793.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 29, 1992
Decided: January 29, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-87-409-CRT)

Samuel Wayne Guy, Appellant Pro Se.

George Joseph Franks, IV, COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Larry James McGlothlin, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Samuel Wayne Guy appeals from the district court's order entering judgment on a jury verdict for Defendants in Guy's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) suit. Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Guy v. Bedsole, No. CA-87-409-CRT (E.D.N.C. June 4, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer