Filed: Dec. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7080 JAMES ANTHONY MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MELVIN A. HORTON; BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; CAPTAIN BROWN; S. BANKS; SGT. KORWIN; CARL E. BATTLE; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Dir. Div. of Prisons; ROY COOPER, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03081-BO) Submitted: November 18,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7080 JAMES ANTHONY MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MELVIN A. HORTON; BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; CAPTAIN BROWN; S. BANKS; SGT. KORWIN; CARL E. BATTLE; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Dir. Div. of Prisons; ROY COOPER, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03081-BO) Submitted: November 18, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7080
JAMES ANTHONY MAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MELVIN A. HORTON; BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; CAPTAIN
BROWN; S. BANKS; SGT. KORWIN; CARL E. BATTLE; ROBERT C.
LEWIS, Dir. Div. of Prisons; ROY COOPER, Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03081-BO)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Anthony May, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony May 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. May v. Horton, No. 5:09-ct-03081-BO (E.D.N.C. July 29,
2010). 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