Filed: Feb. 26, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6911 ARTHUR LEE BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE INGRAM, Officer; DWIGHT KORNEGAY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; KINSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. BOWEN, Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-202-CT-BO) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6911 ARTHUR LEE BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE INGRAM, Officer; DWIGHT KORNEGAY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; KINSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. BOWEN, Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-202-CT-BO) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6911 ARTHUR LEE BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE INGRAM, Officer; DWIGHT KORNEGAY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; KINSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. BOWEN, Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-202-CT-BO) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Wooten, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Branch v. Ingram, No. CA-94-202-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6 & Aug. 11, 1995; May 31, 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 3