Filed: Apr. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7862 WILLIAM S. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RIPLEY RAND, Superior Court Judge; TOM FORD, Assistant District Attorney; CONNIE R. EASON, Extradition Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:11-ct-03201-F) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7862 WILLIAM S. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RIPLEY RAND, Superior Court Judge; TOM FORD, Assistant District Attorney; CONNIE R. EASON, Extradition Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:11-ct-03201-F) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7862 WILLIAM S. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RIPLEY RAND, Superior Court Judge; TOM FORD, Assistant District Attorney; CONNIE R. EASON, Extradition Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:11-ct-03201-F) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William S. Parker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Parker v. Rand, No. 5:11-ct-03201-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2012). 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. DISMISSED 2
