Filed: Aug. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6861 HAMILTON COZART, JR., a/k/a Edwin Barfield, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BURT WEBB; JAMES SANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-04-213-5-FL) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6861 HAMILTON COZART, JR., a/k/a Edwin Barfield, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BURT WEBB; JAMES SANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-04-213-5-FL) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6861 HAMILTON COZART, JR., a/k/a Edwin Barfield, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BURT WEBB; JAMES SANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-04-213-5-FL) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hamilton Cozart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hamilton Cozart, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cozart v. Webb, No. CA-04-213-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2004). 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 -
