Filed: Apr. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6098 REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DONNIE ROWE, Sergeant of Detectives, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00821-JAB-RAE) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6098 REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DONNIE ROWE, Sergeant of Detectives, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00821-JAB-RAE) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6098 REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DONNIE ROWE, Sergeant of Detectives, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00821-JAB-RAE) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Lee Rogers, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Lee Rogers, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Rogers’ motions for appointment of counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rogers v. Rowe, No. 1:07-cv- 00821-JAB-RAE (M.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 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 -
