Filed: Feb. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7282 CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. A. MUNNS, Sergeant; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; TED PERRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-435) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7282 CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. A. MUNNS, Sergeant; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; TED PERRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-435) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7282 CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. A. MUNNS, Sergeant; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; TED PERRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-435) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) 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. Rogers v. Munns, No. CA-93-435 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). 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 2
