Filed: Aug. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6273 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-ct-03107-FL) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6273 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-ct-03107-FL) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6273 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-ct-03107-FL) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lester Hardy appeals the district court’s order 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. Hardy v. Bennett, No. 5:06-ct-03107-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 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 -
