Filed: Dec. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7226 DAVID WATTLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; ARTHUR F. BEELER; STEPHEN WILLIAMS; ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-772-5-F) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7226 DAVID WATTLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; ARTHUR F. BEELER; STEPHEN WILLIAMS; ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-772-5-F) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Sen..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7226 DAVID WATTLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; ARTHUR F. BEELER; STEPHEN WILLIAMS; ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-772-5-F) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wattleton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Wattleton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reinstate his civil complaint. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wattleton v. Sawyer, No. CA-02-772-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 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. AFFIRMED 2
