Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1385 DERNECK L. PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS HARDEE; ROYCE DAVIS; RICKY L. JONES; ELKAY SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-27-7-F) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1385 DERNECK L. PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS HARDEE; ROYCE DAVIS; RICKY L. JONES; ELKAY SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-27-7-F) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1385 DERNECK L. PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS HARDEE; ROYCE DAVIS; RICKY L. JONES; ELKAY SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-27-7-F) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derneck L. Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Derneck Pittman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is friv- olous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Pittman v. Hardee, No. CA-99-27-7-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 1999). 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
