Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6800 RICKEY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN C. PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-106-3-MU) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6800 RICKEY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN C. PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-106-3-MU) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6800
RICKEY R. LLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN C. PHILLIPS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-106-3-MU)
Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999
Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rickey R. Lloyd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Lloyd v. Freeman, No. CA-97-106-3-MU (W.D.N.C.
May 11, 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.
AFFIRMED
2