Filed: May 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7375 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. SHOAF, Detective; T. A. WEAVIL, Officer; SERGEANT FRY; CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-8) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: May 13, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7375 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. SHOAF, Detective; T. A. WEAVIL, Officer; SERGEANT FRY; CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-8) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: May 13, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7375 GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. SHOAF, Detective; T. A. WEAVIL, Officer; SERGEANT FRY; CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-8) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: May 13, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Reynold Evans appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Evans v. Shoaf, No. CA-03-8 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 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 -
