Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morgan v. Willoughby, 96-1928 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1928 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1928 ROBERT LEWIS MORGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLON WILLOUGHBY, Wake County District Attor- ney, in his personal and official capacity; JOSHUA THARRINGTON, Assistant Wake County Dis- trict Attorney, in his personal and official capacity; D. C. SUGGS, City of Raleigh Police Officer, in his personal and official capac- ity; WAKE COUNTY, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1928 ROBERT LEWIS MORGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLON WILLOUGHBY, Wake County District Attor- ney, in his personal and official capacity; JOSHUA THARRINGTON, Assistant Wake County Dis- trict Attorney, in his personal and official capacity; D. C. SUGGS, City of Raleigh Police Officer, in his personal and official capac- ity; WAKE COUNTY, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-64-5-BR) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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Michael R. Ferrell, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, 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 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