Filed: Jan. 31, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2565 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID GODWIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-138-7-F) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2565 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID GODWIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-138-7-F) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2565 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID GODWIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-138-7-F) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans, Sr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and on his motion for re- consideration. 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. Evans v. Godwin, No. CA-96-138-7-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 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
