Filed: Jan. 24, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7681 WILLIAM EARL GORHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE KENTWORTHY; PAUL TAYLOR; P. LOWRY- CHAVIS, Programs Supervisor at Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00042-H) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7681 WILLIAM EARL GORHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE KENTWORTHY; PAUL TAYLOR; P. LOWRY- CHAVIS, Programs Supervisor at Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00042-H) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAX..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7681 WILLIAM EARL GORHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE KENTWORTHY; PAUL TAYLOR; P. LOWRY- CHAVIS, Programs Supervisor at Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00042-H) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Earl Gorham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Earl Gorham appeals the district court’s orders dismissing part of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) and denying relief on the remainder of his claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gorham v. Kentworthy, No. 5:05-ct-00042-H (Aug. 4, 2005 and Sept. 12, 2006). We also deny Gorham’s motion to alter his filing fee. 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 -