Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Howard v. US District Court, 98-1736 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1736 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1736 EMMA V. HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Middle District of NC; FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR., Individually and in his capacity as Honorable Chief Judge; ROMALLUS O. MURPHY, Individually and in his official capacity as attorney for civil right and labor law defendant; J. P. CREEKMORE, Individually and in his capacity as Clerk of United States District Court, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal fro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1736 EMMA V. HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Middle District of NC; FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR., Individually and in his capacity as Honorable Chief Judge; ROMALLUS O. MURPHY, Individually and in his official capacity as attorney for civil right and labor law defendant; J. P. CREEKMORE, Individually and in his capacity as Clerk of United States District Court, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-97-1) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 3, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emma V. Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Emma V. Howard appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Howard v. United States District Court, No. CA-98-97-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 1998). 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
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