Filed: Feb. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7635 SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, formerly known as Michael W. Montgomery, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. CATOE, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (MISC-95-160) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7635 SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, formerly known as Michael W. Montgomery, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. CATOE, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (MISC-95-160) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7635 SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, formerly known as Michael W. Montgomery, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. CATOE, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (MISC-95-160) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief in his civil action. 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. X v. Catoe, No. MISC-95-160 (D.S.C. Oct. 12, 1995). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
