Filed: May 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6149 ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. I. B. LOVELL; D. D. GRONAU, Defendants -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-03174-H) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Annis Recardo Lloyd, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6149 ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. I. B. LOVELL; D. D. GRONAU, Defendants -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-03174-H) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6149 ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. I. B. LOVELL; D. D. GRONAU, Defendants -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-03174-H) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Annis Recardo Lloyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action raising allegations of defamation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lloyd v. Lovell, No. 5:08-ct- 03174-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2009). We deny as moot Lloyd’s motion to compel. 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
