Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fenner v. Bell, 09-2348 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2348 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2348 WALDO FENNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL BELL, Mayor; PATRICK BAKER; STEVEN W. CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; STEPHEN MIHAICH; BEV COUNCIL; JEFF LAMB; R. H. SHEPHERD; B. D. REITZ; TIMOTHY STANHOPE; M. K. BOND; LAWRENCE CAMPBELL; MRS. SHANNON TUCKER; MRS. DANIEL BRUNO; MICHAEL S. FERGUSON; ORLANDO HUDSON, Judge; PAYNE, Magistrate; T. A. DREW, Magistrate; ANTHONY MOSS; DR. OXLEY, Chief Executive Officer; RENEE GOR
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2348 WALDO FENNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL BELL, Mayor; PATRICK BAKER; STEVEN W. CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; STEPHEN MIHAICH; BEV COUNCIL; JEFF LAMB; R. H. SHEPHERD; B. D. REITZ; TIMOTHY STANHOPE; M. K. BOND; LAWRENCE CAMPBELL; MRS. SHANNON TUCKER; MRS. DANIEL BRUNO; MICHAEL S. FERGUSON; ORLANDO HUDSON, Judge; PAYNE, Magistrate; T. A. DREW, Magistrate; ANTHONY MOSS; DR. OXLEY, Chief Executive Officer; RENEE GORBY; ELAINE BUSHFAN, Chief Justice; TRACEY E. CLINE; MICHAEL NIFONG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00367-TDS-DPD) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Waldo Fenner, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Martin Grantham, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Durham, North Carolina; David John Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Harold Franklin Askins, Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Waldo Fenner appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as modified, and dismissing his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fenner v. Bell, No. 1:08-cv-00367-TDS-DPD (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2009). 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 3
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