Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ellerbe v. Wiley, 99-7423 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7423 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7423 NATHANIEL ELLERBE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH WILEY; LARRY SNEAD, Defendants - Appellees, and DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Wallace Wade Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-339) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirme
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7423 NATHANIEL ELLERBE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH WILEY; LARRY SNEAD, Defendants - Appellees, and DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Wallace Wade Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-339) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Ellerbe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Ellerbe, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Ellerbe v. Wiley, No. CA-98-339 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer