Filed: Feb. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1238 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REPUBLIC TOBACCO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-151-7-F) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ch
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1238 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REPUBLIC TOBACCO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-151-7-F) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1238 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REPUBLIC TOBACCO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-151-7-F) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Marilyn R. Forbes, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Evans v. Republic Tobacco, No. CA-96-151-7-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1997). 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
