Filed: Apr. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7957 JOHN E. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellee, and J. RANDOLPH WARD; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-733-H) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7957 JOHN E. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellee, and J. RANDOLPH WARD; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-733-H) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7957 JOHN E. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellee, and J. RANDOLPH WARD; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-733-H) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. King, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Jerome Murray, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 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. King v. Griffin, No. CA-94-733-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
