Filed: Jul. 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6318 JACQUES FLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT HINES; TOMMY PAGE, Captain; LIEUTENANT OWENS; SERGEANT STIRES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-958) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6318 JACQUES FLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT HINES; TOMMY PAGE, Captain; LIEUTENANT OWENS; SERGEANT STIRES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-958) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6318 JACQUES FLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT HINES; TOMMY PAGE, Captain; LIEUTENANT OWENS; SERGEANT STIRES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-958) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacques Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jacques Floyd appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Floyd v. Hines, No. CA-03-958 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 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 -
