Filed: Aug. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6462 ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; ROBY C. LEE; TONY SANDERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-576-5-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6462 ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; ROBY C. LEE; TONY SANDERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-576-5-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6462 ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; ROBY C. LEE; TONY SANDERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-576-5-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bartlett v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-04- 576-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 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 -
