Filed: Apr. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7766 MARK ANTHONY DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; CHARLES STEVENS; DAVID L. MURPHY; JOYCE FINE, 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-95-347-5-H) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7766 MARK ANTHONY DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; CHARLES STEVENS; DAVID L. MURPHY; JOYCE FINE, 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-95-347-5-H) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7766
MARK ANTHONY DENNIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FRANKLIN FREEMAN; CHARLES STEVENS; DAVID L.
MURPHY; JOYCE FINE,
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-95-347-5-H)
Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Anthony Dennis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 on his 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. Dennis v. Freeman, No. CA-95-347-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18,
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 decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2