Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6953 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CREECY; ALTON R. ANDERSON, 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-98-541-5-H) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6953 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CREECY; ALTON R. ANDERSON, 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-98-541-5-H) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ped..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6953 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CREECY; ALTON R. ANDERSON, 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-98-541-5-H) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Garcia Quintero, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Herre Erwin, Assis- tant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pedro Garcia Quintero appeals the district court’s judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Quintero v. Creecy, No. CA- 98-541-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 7, 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
