Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1674 MARK SCHNEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER SMITH; NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PATROL DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 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-01-916) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1674 MARK SCHNEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER SMITH; NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PATROL DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 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-01-916) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1674
MARK SCHNEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER SMITH; NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY
PATROL DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
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-01-916)
Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Schnee, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Schnee appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint arising from
a speeding ticket he received in North Carolina. 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. See Schnee v. Smith, No. CA-01-916 (E.D.N.C. May 13, 2002).
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