Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1123 VENOLA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS F. WOODRUFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00272-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Venola M. Johnson, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1123 VENOLA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS F. WOODRUFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00272-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Venola M. Johnson, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1123 VENOLA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS F. WOODRUFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00272-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Venola M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Louis F. Woodruff, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Venola M. Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. Johnson v. Woodruff, No. 5:05-cv-00272-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29 & July 7, 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 -
