Filed: Mar. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2382 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERQUIMANS COUNTY; ERIC TILLEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-40-2-BO(1)) Submitted: March 4, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2382 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERQUIMANS COUNTY; ERIC TILLEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-40-2-BO(1)) Submitted: March 4, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2382 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERQUIMANS COUNTY; ERIC TILLEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-40-2-BO(1)) Submitted: March 4, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Craig Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; John V. Matthews, Jr., Hertford, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clark v. Perquimans County, No. CA-02-40-2-B0(1) (E.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 2002). We deny Clark’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 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