Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rogers v. Jarvis, 97-7385 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7385 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jan. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7385 BRUCE ALTON ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. M. JARVIS; HERMAN C. WILSON, JR.; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-584-5-BO2) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7385 BRUCE ALTON ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. M. JARVIS; HERMAN C. WILSON, JR.; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-584-5-BO2) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Alton Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing with- out prejudice as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, dis- missing the action because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appel- lant's motion for judicial notice and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. Jarvis, No. CA-97-584-5-B02 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 1997). To the extent that the district court did not expressly address Appellant’s claims for damages, we find that the claims are meritless. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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