Filed: May 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7566 HERMAN K. SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR.; RALPH A. WHITE; EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR.; GEORGE T. GRIFFIN; WILLIAM N. FARRELL, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-414-5-F) Submitted: March 25, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7566 HERMAN K. SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR.; RALPH A. WHITE; EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR.; GEORGE T. GRIFFIN; WILLIAM N. FARRELL, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-414-5-F) Submitted: March 25, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7566 HERMAN K. SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR.; RALPH A. WHITE; EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR.; GEORGE T. GRIFFIN; WILLIAM N. FARRELL, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-414-5-F) Submitted: March 25, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman K. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herman K. Simpson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simpson v. Butterfield, No. CA-01-414-5-F (E.D.N.C. July 19, 2001). We deny Simpson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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
