Filed: Sep. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6640 EUGENE LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00035) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Little, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6640 EUGENE LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00035) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Little, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6640 EUGENE LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00035) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Little, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eugene Little appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Little v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:06-cv-00035 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2006). We deny Little’s motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for this court to intervene in his grievance with the prison. 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 -
