Filed: Mar. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7611 FRANK MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNCOMBE COUNTY; KATE DREHER, Assistant District Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-294-1) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7611 FRANK MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNCOMBE COUNTY; KATE DREHER, Assistant District Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-294-1) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7611 FRANK MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNCOMBE COUNTY; KATE DREHER, Assistant District Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-294-1) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank Moore appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moore v. Buncombe County, No CA-05-294-1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 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 -
