Filed: May 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6463 EARL ANDERSON FRANKLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. CARLTON TILLEY, JR., United States District Judge; LISA BLUE BOGGS; GREGORY VINCENT DAVIS; WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-203-1) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6463 EARL ANDERSON FRANKLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. CARLTON TILLEY, JR., United States District Judge; LISA BLUE BOGGS; GREGORY VINCENT DAVIS; WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-203-1) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6463 EARL ANDERSON FRANKLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. CARLTON TILLEY, JR., United States District Judge; LISA BLUE BOGGS; GREGORY VINCENT DAVIS; WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-203-1) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Anderson Franklin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earl Anderson Franklin appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Franklin v. Tilley, No. CA-00-203-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2000). 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
