Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7645 WILLIAM J. NEAL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AARON JOHNSON; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Defendants - Appellees, and JOSEPH HAMILTON; LYNN PHILLIPS; GARY DIXON; H. B. BYAD; D. FOSTER; WILLIAM A. DUDLEY; CHARLES K. CRAVEN, JR.; JOHN DOE, #1; JOHN DOE, #2, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-563-5-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7645 WILLIAM J. NEAL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AARON JOHNSON; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Defendants - Appellees, and JOSEPH HAMILTON; LYNN PHILLIPS; GARY DIXON; H. B. BYAD; D. FOSTER; WILLIAM A. DUDLEY; CHARLES K. CRAVEN, JR.; JOHN DOE, #1; JOHN DOE, #2, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-563-5-C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7645 WILLIAM J. NEAL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AARON JOHNSON; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Defendants - Appellees, and JOSEPH HAMILTON; LYNN PHILLIPS; GARY DIXON; H. B. BYAD; D. FOSTER; WILLIAM A. DUDLEY; CHARLES K. CRAVEN, JR.; JOHN DOE, #1; JOHN DOE, #2, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-563-5-CT-H) Submitted: February 29, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Neal v. Johnson, No. CA-93-563-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3