Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joyce v. Pugh, 96-6603 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6603 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6603 EDWIN WAYNE JOYCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALVAN P. PUGH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-132-2) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 25, 1996 Before HALL, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6603 EDWIN WAYNE JOYCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALVAN P. PUGH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-132-2) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 25, 1996 Before HALL, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Wayne Joyce, Appellant Pro Se. Alvan P. Pugh, GAVIN, COX, PUGH, GAVIN & GAVIN, Asheboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting his motion to voluntarily dismiss his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) action, but requiring that he pay the filing fee and be represented by an attorney if he chooses to refile this action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Joyce v. Pugh, No. CA-95-132-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 1996). We dispense 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. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer