Filed: Jun. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6309 CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH D. ELLIS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:06-CT-03123-D) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robert Barefoot,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6309 CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH D. ELLIS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:06-CT-03123-D) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robert Barefoot, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6309 CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH D. ELLIS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:06-CT-03123-D) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barefoot v. Ellis, No. 5:06-CT-03123-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2007). We deny Barefoot’s motion for appointment of CJA counsel. 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
