Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7601 LEVON TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER; ALICE LEONARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-167-4-1-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7601 LEVON TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER; ALICE LEONARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-167-4-1-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7601 LEVON TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER; ALICE LEONARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-167-4-1-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levon Todd, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Todd v. Walker, No. CA-98-167-4-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 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
