Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cline v. Binder, 01-1123 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1123 Visitors: 39
Filed: Jul. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1123 WALTER CLINE; WILLIAM HAGLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ARTHUR BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; MORRIS BEDSOLE, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumber- land County and individually; JIMMY HENLEY; JOHN DOE, in their official capacities and individually; CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CARO- LINA, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumber
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1123 WALTER CLINE; WILLIAM HAGLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ARTHUR BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; MORRIS BEDSOLE, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumber- land County and individually; JIMMY HENLEY; JOHN DOE, in their official capacities and individually; CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CARO- LINA, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumber- land County, 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-96-811-5-BO) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 19, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Cline, William Hagler, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Edward Canders, CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Cline and William Hagler appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cline v. Binder, No. CA-96-811-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2000). We dis- pense 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
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