Filed: May 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2574 JOHN H. EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSROADS FORD; DEREK M. PARKER; CHARLES G. BROWN; JACK W. JENKINS, 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 (CA-04-805-BR-5) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2574 JOHN H. EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSROADS FORD; DEREK M. PARKER; CHARLES G. BROWN; JACK W. JENKINS, 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 (CA-04-805-BR-5) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2574 JOHN H. EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSROADS FORD; DEREK M. PARKER; CHARLES G. BROWN; JACK W. JENKINS, 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 (CA-04-805-BR-5) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). * This opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000). PER CURIAM: John H. Everett 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 Everett v. Crossroads Ford, No. CA-04-805-BR-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 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 -
