Filed: Jul. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6782 VINCENT BRADFORD EARL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GOULD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cv-00109) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6782 VINCENT BRADFORD EARL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GOULD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cv-00109) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6782 VINCENT BRADFORD EARL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GOULD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cv-00109) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Bradford Earl, Appellant Pro Se. Julie M. Kepple, BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent Bradford Earl appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims filed pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc - 2000cc-5 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Earl v. Gould, No. 1:03-cv-00109 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2006). 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 -
