Filed: Oct. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6624 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARLEY LAPPIN; SALLY C. JOHNSON; M. SCHAEFER; BRYON HERBEL, 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-98-282-5-H) Submitted: September 10, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6624 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARLEY LAPPIN; SALLY C. JOHNSON; M. SCHAEFER; BRYON HERBEL, 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-98-282-5-H) Submitted: September 10, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6624 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARLEY LAPPIN; SALLY C. JOHNSON; M. SCHAEFER; BRYON HERBEL, 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-98-282-5-H) Submitted: September 10, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nagy v. Lappin, No. CA-98-282-5-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24 1999). The motion to expedite is denied. We deny the motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
