Filed: Aug. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6507 JOHN RAPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT ADAMS, Defendant - Appellee.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-00041-D) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Raper,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6507 JOHN RAPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT ADAMS, Defendant - Appellee.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-00041-D) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Raper, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6507 JOHN RAPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT ADAMS, Defendant - Appellee.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-00041-D) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Raper, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Raper appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Raper v. Adams, No. 5:06-ct- 00041-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2007). 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 -
