Filed: Apr. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7800 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, J. T. HADDEN, Warden; KEVIN J. MCBRIDE, PhD., A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcom J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-747-5-H) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7800 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, J. T. HADDEN, Warden; KEVIN J. MCBRIDE, PhD., A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcom J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-747-5-H) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7800 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, J. T. HADDEN, Warden; KEVIN J. MCBRIDE, PhD., A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcom J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-747-5-H) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raphael Mendez appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mendez v. United States, No. CA-03-747-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 2003). The motion for refund of money withheld from appellant’s trust account under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is denied. 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 -
