Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6565 DARRICK LAMONTE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA BAKER; MARY HARROP; KAREN PARDUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-825-5-BR) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6565 DARRICK LAMONTE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA BAKER; MARY HARROP; KAREN PARDUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-825-5-BR) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6565 DARRICK LAMONTE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUANITA BAKER; MARY HARROP; KAREN PARDUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-825-5-BR) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrick Lamonte King, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darrick Lamonte King 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See King v. Baker, No. CA-01-825-5-BR (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 2, 2004 & entered Mar. 3, 2004). We deny King’s pending motion for relief. 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 -
