Filed: Dec. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1764 RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELMS, MULLISS, WICKER PLLC; JAMES G. MIDDLEBROOKS; MARK W. JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00052-GCM) Submitted: November 10, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1764 RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELMS, MULLISS, WICKER PLLC; JAMES G. MIDDLEBROOKS; MARK W. JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00052-GCM) Submitted: November 10, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1764 RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELMS, MULLISS, WICKER PLLC; JAMES G. MIDDLEBROOKS; MARK W. JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00052-GCM) Submitted: November 10, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas William Ey, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy L. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Helms, Mulliss, Wicker PLLC, No. 3:07-cv-00052-GCM (W.D.N.C. June 19, 2008). 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
