Filed: Aug. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6636 FREDERICK GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLIFTON STYRON; JAMES SHINGLETON, Defendants - Appellees, and RALPH THOMAS, Sheriff; Defendant, and CORPORAL HUNTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-ct-00422-FL) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6636 FREDERICK GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLIFTON STYRON; JAMES SHINGLETON, Defendants - Appellees, and RALPH THOMAS, Sheriff; Defendant, and CORPORAL HUNTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-ct-00422-FL) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6636 FREDERICK GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLIFTON STYRON; JAMES SHINGLETON, Defendants - Appellees, and RALPH THOMAS, Sheriff; Defendant, and CORPORAL HUNTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-ct-00422-FL) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Fredrick Gibbs appeals the district court’s order and judgment 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. Gibbs v. Thomas, No. 5:04-ct-00422-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 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 - 3 -
