Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2214 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL W. DUKE, JR.; LOIS B. MEYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-52-7-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywoo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2214 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL W. DUKE, JR.; LOIS B. MEYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-52-7-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2214 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL W. DUKE, JR.; LOIS B. MEYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-52-7-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Allen Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Staci Tolliver Meyer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Haywood Allen Cannon appeals the district court’s orders de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cannon v. Duke, No. CA-00-52-7-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2000 & Aug. 27, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
