Filed: May 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6508 ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, FCI Butner; JOHN ASHCROFT, US Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-937-5-HO) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6508 ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, FCI Butner; JOHN ASHCROFT, US Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-937-5-HO) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6508 ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, FCI Butner; JOHN ASHCROFT, US Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-937-5-HO) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Tillman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Tillman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 Tillman v. Dewalt, No. CA-01-937-5-HO (E.D.N.C. filed Feb. 19, 2002, entered Feb. 20, 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
