Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7349 MARC PIERRE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHARLOTTE; NORTH CAROLINA; CITY EM- PLOYEE; JOSEPH BOYKIN, ATF Agent; GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, AUSA; HYATT GUN SHOP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-186-3-MU) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7349 MARC PIERRE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHARLOTTE; NORTH CAROLINA; CITY EM- PLOYEE; JOSEPH BOYKIN, ATF Agent; GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, AUSA; HYATT GUN SHOP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-186-3-MU) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7349 MARC PIERRE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHARLOTTE; NORTH CAROLINA; CITY EM- PLOYEE; JOSEPH BOYKIN, ATF Agent; GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, AUSA; HYATT GUN SHOP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-186-3-MU) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marc Pierre Hall, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the dis- trict court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. City of Charlotte, No. CA-97-186-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 1997). 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. DISMISSED 2
