Filed: Dec. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6696 ANTONIO LAMONE DUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS P. SWAIN; CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, North Carolina Division; UNITED STATES DIS- TRICT COURT, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 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-96-59) Submi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6696 ANTONIO LAMONE DUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS P. SWAIN; CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, North Carolina Division; UNITED STATES DIS- TRICT COURT, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 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-96-59) Submit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6696 ANTONIO LAMONE DUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS P. SWAIN; CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, North Carolina Division; UNITED STATES DIS- TRICT COURT, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 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-96-59) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Lamone Dunson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his civil rights action. 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. Dunson v. Swain, No. CA-96-59 (E.D.N.C. March 6, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
