Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2411 EDDIE LAREECE PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS; JOHN B. MCCUBBIN; REGGINALD CAMPBELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00556-MAC-DSC) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2411 EDDIE LAREECE PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS; JOHN B. MCCUBBIN; REGGINALD CAMPBELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00556-MAC-DSC) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2411 EDDIE LAREECE PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS; JOHN B. MCCUBBIN; REGGINALD CAMPBELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00556-MAC-DSC) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie LaReece Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddie LaReece Pittman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pittman v. Archer W. Contractors, No. 3:11-cv-00556-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011). 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
