Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6578 GREGORY NEIL KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BAKER, JR.; CHARLES L. WEST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-746-5-BR) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grego
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6578 GREGORY NEIL KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BAKER, JR.; CHARLES L. WEST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-746-5-BR) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregor..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6578 GREGORY NEIL KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN BAKER, JR.; CHARLES L. WEST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-746-5-BR) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Neil Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gregory Neil Kelly appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kelly v. Baker, No. CA-99-746-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
