Filed: Dec. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1908 JOY HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GRAVES HOMES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-321) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joy Hicks, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1908 JOY HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GRAVES HOMES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-321) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joy Hicks, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1908 JOY HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GRAVES HOMES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-321) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joy Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order summarily dis- missing the complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Hicks v. Prince Graves Homes, No. CA-96-321 (M.D.N.C. June 13, 1996). 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 2
