Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6359 WILLIAM MORGANHERRING, IV, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; JAMES B. FRENCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-984-5-CT-BO) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6359 WILLIAM MORGANHERRING, IV, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; JAMES B. FRENCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-984-5-CT-BO) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6359 WILLIAM MORGANHERRING, IV, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; JAMES B. FRENCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-984-5-CT-BO) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William MorganHerring, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) com- plaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. MorganHerring v. Hunt, No. CA-97-984-5-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 1998). 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
