Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6212 MAURICE WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY NORDAN; SAN NORDAN; MR. HALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-612-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice White, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6212 MAURICE WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY NORDAN; SAN NORDAN; MR. HALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-612-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice White, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6212 MAURICE WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY NORDAN; SAN NORDAN; MR. HALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-612-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice White, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Nordan, San Nordan, Mr. Hall, Polkton, North Carolina, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Maurice White appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See White v. Nordan, No. CA-04-612-3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2005). 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 -
