Filed: Feb. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7507 ARDIE D. NOLAN, III; JOHNNIE ROWE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RANDALL LEE; BOB LANIER; SERGEANT JOHNSON; CHARLES MINGGIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-644-5-CT-H) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7507 ARDIE D. NOLAN, III; JOHNNIE ROWE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RANDALL LEE; BOB LANIER; SERGEANT JOHNSON; CHARLES MINGGIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-644-5-CT-H) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7507 ARDIE D. NOLAN, III; JOHNNIE ROWE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RANDALL LEE; BOB LANIER; SERGEANT JOHNSON; CHARLES MINGGIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-644-5-CT-H) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ardie D. Nolan, III, Johnnie Rowe, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying re- lief on their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nolan v. Lee, No. CA-95-644-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 1995). We deny Appellant Nolan's motion for an injunction. We dis- pense 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
