Filed: Mar. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7423 ROBERT NEIL JOANNIDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL GINN; LARRY DAIL; ROBERT TYSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-58-5-BR) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: March 12, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7423 ROBERT NEIL JOANNIDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL GINN; LARRY DAIL; ROBERT TYSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-58-5-BR) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: March 12, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7423 ROBERT NEIL JOANNIDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUSSELL GINN; LARRY DAIL; ROBERT TYSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-58-5-BR) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: March 12, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Neil Joannides, Appellant Pro Se. Buren Riley Shields, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Neil Joannides appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no revers- ible error. Further, Joannides’ claims regarding his untimely submission of affidavits, and allegations of bias on the part of the magistrate judge are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Joannides v. Ginn, No. CA-00- 58-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 18, 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. AFFIRMED 2