Filed: Apr. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7663 BYRON SHAWNTELE GEORGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF CRAVEN; JERRY MONETTE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-282-5-H) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7663 BYRON SHAWNTELE GEORGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF CRAVEN; JERRY MONETTE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-282-5-H) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Sh..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7663 BYRON SHAWNTELE GEORGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF CRAVEN; JERRY MONETTE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-282-5-H) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Shawntele George, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Byron Shawntele George appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See George v. County of Craven, No. CA-04-282-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 22, 2004; entered 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
