Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6523 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT SEIBER; CUSTODIAN FOX; SERGEANT AUSTIN; MCWILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-215-CRT-F) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6523 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT SEIBER; CUSTODIAN FOX; SERGEANT AUSTIN; MCWILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-215-CRT-F) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6523 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT SEIBER; CUSTODIAN FOX; SERGEANT AUSTIN; MCWILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-215-CRT-F) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius Tucker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the entry of a pre-filing injunction. 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. Tucker v. Seiber, No. CA-93-215-CRT-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 1996). 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
