Filed: Jun. 19, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6559 DOMINIQUE MUHAMMAD SALAAM-X, a/k/a Alfred D. Clifton, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM PENDERGRAPH; N. CARTER, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-37-3-MU-02) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6559 DOMINIQUE MUHAMMAD SALAAM-X, a/k/a Alfred D. Clifton, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM PENDERGRAPH; N. CARTER, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-37-3-MU-02) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6559 DOMINIQUE MUHAMMAD SALAAM-X, a/k/a Alfred D. Clifton, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM PENDERGRAPH; N. CARTER, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-37-3-MU-02) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dominique Muhammad Salaam-X, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dominique Muhammad Salaam-X 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 Salaam-X v. Pendergraph, No. CA-03-37-3-MU-02 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2003). We deny Salaam-X’s motion for 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
