Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Berry v. Porterfield, 08-8571 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8571 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8571 WILLIE LEE BERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. M. TIMOTHY PORTERFIELD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cv-00627-GCM) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Lee Berry, Appellant Pr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8571 WILLIE LEE BERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. M. TIMOTHY PORTERFIELD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cv-00627-GCM) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Lee Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Lee Berry appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its previous order dismissing his 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. Berry v. Porterfield, No. 3:01-cv-00627-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer