Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1185 BRUCE L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBIN C. AUBE-WARREN; JAMES HICKEY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-307-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1185 BRUCE L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBIN C. AUBE-WARREN; JAMES HICKEY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-307-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1185 BRUCE L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBIN C. AUBE-WARREN; JAMES HICKEY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-307-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce L. Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson Marshall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bruce L. Hoffman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hoffman v. Aube-Warren, No. CA-96-307-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
