Filed: Feb. 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7950 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; EARNEST SUTTON; CAPTAIN DANIELS, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-721) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7950 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; EARNEST SUTTON; CAPTAIN DANIELS, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-721) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7950 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; EARNEST SUTTON; CAPTAIN DANIELS, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-721) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Freddy L. Wambach appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wambach v. Beck, No. CA-02-721 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 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. DISMISSED 2
