Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bryson v. Johnston, 02-6807 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6807 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6807 LESTER DANIEL BRYSON; JOHN FRANK BOWEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; FORREST D. BRIDGES, State Superior Court Judge; DENNIS J. WINNER, State Superior Court Judge; ROY COOPER, State Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-0
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6807 LESTER DANIEL BRYSON; JOHN FRANK BOWEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; FORREST D. BRIDGES, State Superior Court Judge; DENNIS J. WINNER, State Superior Court Judge; ROY COOPER, State Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-89-1-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Daniel Bryson, John Frank Bowen, Appellants Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen, North Carolina inmates, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2002) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryson v. Johnston, No. CA-02-89-1-2 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2002). We further deny the pending motion for the appointment of counsel and for oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer