Filed: May 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7690 JERRY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES D. ENGLEMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-616-BO) Submitted: May 10, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Locklear, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7690 JERRY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES D. ENGLEMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-616-BO) Submitted: May 10, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Locklear, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7690 JERRY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES D. ENGLEMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-616-BO) Submitted: May 10, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerry Locklear, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Locklear v. Engleman, No. CA-00-616-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 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. DISMISSED 2
