Filed: Dec. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7174 ADAM CLAYTON PUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF JOHN INGRAM; CAPTAIN DAVIS; CAPTAIN EVANS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-ct-03027-FL) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7174 ADAM CLAYTON PUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF JOHN INGRAM; CAPTAIN DAVIS; CAPTAIN EVANS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-ct-03027-FL) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7174 ADAM CLAYTON PUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF JOHN INGRAM; CAPTAIN DAVIS; CAPTAIN EVANS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-ct-03027-FL) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adam Clayton Pugh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adam Clayton Pugh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pugh v. Ingram, No. 5:12- ct-03027-FL (E.D.N.C. July 3, 2012). We deny Pugh’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
