Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6840 LARRY GARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. E. DAVID; R. L. HOPPER; R. H. SIZEMORE; B. S. DOBBS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-572-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6840 LARRY GARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. E. DAVID; R. L. HOPPER; R. H. SIZEMORE; B. S. DOBBS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-572-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6840 LARRY GARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. E. DAVID; R. L. HOPPER; R. H. SIZEMORE; B. S. DOBBS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-572-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Gary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fred Thurman Hamlet, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Gary, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Gary was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Gary’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s finding that he had filed his complaint outside the three-year limitations period, but instead addresses the merits of his claims. Accordingly, we affirm. 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