Filed: Jun. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6687 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. W. GRIFFIN; CABARRUS COUNTY, Sheriff Department; W. ERWIN SPAINHOUR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-218-1) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6687 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. W. GRIFFIN; CABARRUS COUNTY, Sheriff Department; W. ERWIN SPAINHOUR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-218-1) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6687 STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. W. GRIFFIN; CABARRUS COUNTY, Sheriff Department; W. ERWIN SPAINHOUR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-218-1) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Griffin, No. CA-03-218-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2003). 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
