Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wright v. Swing, 06-6106 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-6106 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6106 THOMAS WALTER WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHIEF SWING; K. W. BRADY; SAM POST; R. D. BALL; G. W. HASTINGS; J. BRYANT; CITY OF GREENSBORO, A Municipal Corporation; WALLACE C. HARRELSON, Public Defender for the Eighteenth Judicial District; GREENSBORO POLICE OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6106 THOMAS WALTER WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHIEF SWING; K. W. BRADY; SAM POST; R. D. BALL; G. W. HASTINGS; J. BRYANT; CITY OF GREENSBORO, A Municipal Corporation; WALLACE C. HARRELSON, Public Defender for the Eighteenth Judicial District; GREENSBORO POLICE OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-00264-JAB) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Walter Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Polly D. Sizemore, HILL, EVANS, DUNCAN, JORDAN & DAVIS, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Walter Wright 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. Wright v. Swing, No. 1:05-cv-00264-JAB (M.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer