Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7371 JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. COX, JR., Judge; H. LOWERY, Attorney; THE CITY OF WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-1311-6-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7371 JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. COX, JR., Judge; H. LOWERY, Attorney; THE CITY OF WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-1311-6-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7371 JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. COX, JR., Judge; H. LOWERY, Attorney; THE CITY OF WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-1311-6-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph E. Macon appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Macon v. Cox, No. CA-04-1311-6-HFF (D.S.C. June 22, 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 -
