Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clark v. Graham, 04-2361 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2361 Visitors: 29
Filed: Apr. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2361 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHANIE C. GRAHAM; RICHARD BOLLARD; PERQUIMANS COUNTY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1-2-BO) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2361 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHANIE C. GRAHAM; RICHARD BOLLARD; PERQUIMANS COUNTY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1-2-BO) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Craig Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett Thompson, II, Elizabeth City, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Roy Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, Rudolph A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Graham, No. CA-04-1-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer