Filed: Apr. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7456 DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LACY THORNBURG, Judge; RICK FOSTER, Attorney; SCOTT ALDRIDGE, Probation Officer; J. R. DAVIS, Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00200) Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7456 DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LACY THORNBURG, Judge; RICK FOSTER, Attorney; SCOTT ALDRIDGE, Probation Officer; J. R. DAVIS, Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00200) Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7456 DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LACY THORNBURG, Judge; RICK FOSTER, Attorney; SCOTT ALDRIDGE, Probation Officer; J. R. DAVIS, Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00200) Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Roger Vandyke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dennis Roger Vandyke appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Vandyke v. Thornburg, No. 1:06-cv-00200 (W.D.N.C. filed June 28, 2006 & entered June 29, 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 -
