Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Robeson Cnty Pub Sch, 97-1651 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1651 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 20, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1651 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBESON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, in its individual capac- ity; BETH WILLIAMSON, in her individual and official capacities; ABNER HARRINGTON, in his individual and official capacities; MIKE SMITH, in his individual and official capac- ities; PAUL BROOKS, in his individual and official capacities; ROBERT DEESE, in his individual and official
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1651 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBESON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, in its individual capac- ity; BETH WILLIAMSON, in her individual and official capacities; ABNER HARRINGTON, in his individual and official capacities; MIKE SMITH, in his individual and official capac- ities; PAUL BROOKS, in his individual and official capacities; ROBERT DEESE, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-42-7-F) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1997), and denying his motion to recuse. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Robeson County Pub. Schs., No. CA-97-42-7-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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