Filed: Jan. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7823 MIKIE L. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C/O SPENCE; C/O DOCKEY; C/O OWENS; SARGEANT BLOWE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-ct-03085-D) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7823 MIKIE L. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C/O SPENCE; C/O DOCKEY; C/O OWENS; SARGEANT BLOWE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-ct-03085-D) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mikie..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7823 MIKIE L. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C/O SPENCE; C/O DOCKEY; C/O OWENS; SARGEANT BLOWE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-ct-03085-D) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mikie L. Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mikie L. Bell 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. Bell v. C/O Spence, No. 5:07-ct-03085-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 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
