Filed: Aug. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8241 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GEORGE J. BRANKER, Defendant – Appellee. 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-03163-H) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8241 LESTER HARDY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GEORGE J. BRANKER, Defendant – Appellee. 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-03163-H) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Hardy, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8241
LESTER HARDY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GEORGE J. BRANKER,
Defendant – Appellee.
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-03163-H)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lester Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. See Hardy v. Branker, No. 5:08-ct-03163-H (E.D.N.C.
Dec. 14, 2009). Further, we deny Hardy’s objection to the fee
for this appeal being charged to his inmate account. 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