Filed: Jan. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7552 DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-465-5-H) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7552 DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-465-5-H) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7552 DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-465-5-H) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Douglas Lee Husketh appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion to void that judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Husketh v. Beck, No. CA-02-465-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 26, 2002, entered Aug. 27, 2002; Sept. 17, 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
