Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6241 ARVIN L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LLOYD W. PARKER, 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-96-49-5-CT-H) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arv
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6241 ARVIN L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LLOYD W. PARKER, 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-96-49-5-CT-H) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arvi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6241 ARVIN L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LLOYD W. PARKER, 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-96-49-5-CT-H) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arvin L. Williams, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Williams v. Freeman, No. CA-96-49-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 1996). We also deny his motion for summary judgment and for an order of restraint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
