Filed: Apr. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6374 LACY LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAKE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-ct-03169-H) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Lee Williams, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6374 LACY LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAKE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-ct-03169-H) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Lee Williams, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6374 LACY LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAKE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-ct-03169-H) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lacy Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Wake County Jail, No. 5:07-ct-03169-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 29, 2008). We deny Williams’ motions for appointment of counsel and for injunctive relief. 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 -
