Filed: May 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1003 MORETON ROLLESTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOMER HOLBROOK, Sheriff of Macon County, NC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-256-2) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1003 MORETON ROLLESTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOMER HOLBROOK, Sheriff of Macon County, NC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-256-2) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mor..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1003 MORETON ROLLESTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOMER HOLBROOK, Sheriff of Macon County, NC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-256-2) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moreton Rolleston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. R. S. Jones, Jr., JONES, KEY, MELVIN & PATTON, P.A., Franklin, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Moreton Rolleston, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a temporary injunction, dismissing his complaint in which he sought to enjoin the enforcement of a state court judgment, 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 Rolleston v. Holbrook, No. CA-01-256-2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2001; Dec. 5, 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