Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2492 CLARENCE BRITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY WHITEHEAD MARTIN, SR.; JACK BENJAMIN CRAWLEY, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-1007-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2492 CLARENCE BRITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY WHITEHEAD MARTIN, SR.; JACK BENJAMIN CRAWLEY, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-1007-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2492 CLARENCE BRITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY WHITEHEAD MARTIN, SR.; JACK BENJAMIN CRAWLEY, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-1007-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Britt, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Wooten, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina; Jack Benjamin Crawley, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JACK B. CRAWLEY, JR., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clarence Britt appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil diversity complaint as time-barred and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Britt v. Martin, No. CA-97-1007-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 30; Sept. 10, 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