Filed: Oct. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7027 FRANKLIN DELYNN MEADERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE; J. BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK; JANE DOE; MR. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-880-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7027 FRANKLIN DELYNN MEADERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE; J. BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK; JANE DOE; MR. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-880-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7027 FRANKLIN DELYNN MEADERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE; J. BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK; JANE DOE; MR. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-880-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Delynn Meaders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Franklin Delynn Meaders 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 Meaders v. Lee, No. CA-03-880-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. May 3, 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 -
