Filed: Mar. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8432 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees.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. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03044-H) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8432 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees.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. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03044-H) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8432 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; DENNIS ROWLAND, Defendants - Appellees.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. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03044-H) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2006) 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. 5:08-ct-03044-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 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
