Filed: Jan. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7736 STEVEN C. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03053-BO) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven C. Wi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7736 STEVEN C. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03053-BO) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven C. Wil..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7736 STEVEN C. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03053-BO) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven C. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven C. Wilson 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. Wilson v. Mann, No. 5:08-ct-03053-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2009). 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
