Filed: Aug. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1200 TED AARON MCCRACKEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. NATALE, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN DOE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-50-5) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1200 TED AARON MCCRACKEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. NATALE, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN DOE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-50-5) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1200 TED AARON MCCRACKEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. NATALE, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN DOE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-50-5) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ted Aaron McCracken, Appellant Pro Se. Robert C. Ekstrand, EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND, L.L.P., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ted Aaron McCracken appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge granting defendant Natale’s motion for summary judgment, and imposing sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCracken v. Natale, No. CA- 04-50-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 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 - 3 -