Filed: May 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6216 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-6222 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEONARD LOWE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-44-CT-BR, CA-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6216 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-6222 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEONARD LOWE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-44-CT-BR, CA-9..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6216 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-6222 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEONARD LOWE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-44-CT-BR, CA-96-46-5- F) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and Motz, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Marion Head, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing these 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) actions as frivolous. Appellant claimed that his convictions violated due process and equal pro- tection principles and that he was denied a speedy trial by an impartial tribunal. He sought damages. Appellant's claims are not cognizable under § 1983 because he has not shown that the chal- lenged convictions have been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 USLW 4594 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). We accordingly affirm the district court's decisions. We dis- pense 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. 2 AFFIRMED 3