Filed: May 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7933 LONNIE EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROOPER WILKERSON; TROOPER BRANCH; I. GRAHAM PRUITT, Magistrate at Pitt County Detention Center; STACEY A. PHIPPS, Associate Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-569-5-4) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Before WIL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7933 LONNIE EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROOPER WILKERSON; TROOPER BRANCH; I. GRAHAM PRUITT, Magistrate at Pitt County Detention Center; STACEY A. PHIPPS, Associate Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-569-5-4) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Before WILL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7933 LONNIE EVERETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROOPER WILKERSON; TROOPER BRANCH; I. GRAHAM PRUITT, Magistrate at Pitt County Detention Center; STACEY A. PHIPPS, Associate Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-569-5-4) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lonnie Everett appeals the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Everett v. Wilkerson, No. CA-04-569-5-4 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 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 -
