Filed: Jan. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7192 TED ANTHONY PREVATTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD CROSS; P. L. CANNADY; JAMES B. FRENCH; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; MACK JARVIS, 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-98-428-5-H) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7192 TED ANTHONY PREVATTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD CROSS; P. L. CANNADY; JAMES B. FRENCH; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; MACK JARVIS, 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-98-428-5-H) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismiss..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7192 TED ANTHONY PREVATTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD CROSS; P. L. CANNADY; JAMES B. FRENCH; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; MACK JARVIS, 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-98-428-5-H) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ted Anthony Prevatte, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ted A. Prevatte, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed 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. Prevatte v. Cross, No. CA- 98-428-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 28, 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. DISMISSED 2
