Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

96-1928 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1928 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 104 F.3d 359 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Lewis MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colon WILLOUGHBY, Wake County District Attorney, in his personal and official capacity; Joshua Tharrington, Assistant Wake County District Attorney, in his personal and official ca
More

104 F.3d 359

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Lewis MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Colon WILLOUGHBY, Wake County District Attorney, in his
personal and official capacity; Joshua Tharrington,
Assistant Wake County District Attorney, in his personal and
official capacity; D.C. Suggs, City of Raleigh Police
Officer, in his personal and official capacity; Wake
County, North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1928.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 1996.
Decided Dec. 30, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-64-5-BR)

Robert Lewis Morgan, Appellant Pro Se.

Floyd Matthew Lewis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dorothy Kibler Woodard, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael R. Ferrell, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Morgan v. Willoughby, No. CA-96-64-5-BR (E.D.N.C. June 10, 1996). 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