Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2213 DAVID P. FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES F. MCDARRIS, Attorney for C.A.S.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-580-5-BO) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2213 DAVID P. FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES F. MCDARRIS, Attorney for C.A.S.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-580-5-BO) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2213 DAVID P. FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES F. MCDARRIS, Attorney for C.A.S.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-580-5-BO) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David P. Farley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David P. Farley, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Farley v. McDarris, No. CA-01-580-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20 & Sept. 25, 2001). 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
