Filed: Oct. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6744 HENRY DONALD COLEMAN, JR., a/k/a Henry Muhammad, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. L. WOODARD; H. E. WEBSTER; CAPTAIN JONES; CHAPLIN SHERMAN; FRAN MINSHEW; MARSHALL PIKE; SERGEANT BATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-113-5-BO) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6744 HENRY DONALD COLEMAN, JR., a/k/a Henry Muhammad, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. L. WOODARD; H. E. WEBSTER; CAPTAIN JONES; CHAPLIN SHERMAN; FRAN MINSHEW; MARSHALL PIKE; SERGEANT BATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-113-5-BO) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6744 HENRY DONALD COLEMAN, JR., a/k/a Henry Muhammad, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. L. WOODARD; H. E. WEBSTER; CAPTAIN JONES; CHAPLIN SHERMAN; FRAN MINSHEW; MARSHALL PIKE; SERGEANT BATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-113-5-BO) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Donald Coleman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Donald Coleman, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Coleman v. Woodard, No. CA- 00-113-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 3, 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
