Filed: Feb. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6083 LARRY JORDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; EMILIO PAGAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-553-5-BO) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6083 LARRY JORDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; EMILIO PAGAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-553-5-BO) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6083 LARRY JORDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; EMILIO PAGAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-553-5-BO) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Jordan appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply with the court’s order directing Jordan to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Jordan was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Jordan’s informal brief does not challenge the grounds for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, 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