Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6226 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CURTIS JONES, Defendant - Appellee, and MARTIN MCDADE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-294-5-BO) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6226 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CURTIS JONES, Defendant - Appellee, and MARTIN MCDADE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-294-5-BO) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6226 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CURTIS JONES, Defendant - Appellee, and MARTIN MCDADE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-294-5-BO) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Williams appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Jones, No. CA-98-294-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 1999). 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
