Filed: Jul. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6055 SHERMAN CLAYTON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW G. EWEND, Neuro-Surgeon at UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (CA-05-673-5) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6055 SHERMAN CLAYTON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW G. EWEND, Neuro-Surgeon at UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (CA-05-673-5) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6055 SHERMAN CLAYTON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW G. EWEND, Neuro-Surgeon at UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (CA-05-673-5) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherman Clayton Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sherman Clayton Montgomery appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Montgomery v. Ewend, No. CA-05-673-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 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 -
