Filed: Nov. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1909 TERRENCE LEROY WRIGHT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WANDA BROOMS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-mc-00003-MR-DLH) Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Leroy Wright,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1909 TERRENCE LEROY WRIGHT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WANDA BROOMS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-mc-00003-MR-DLH) Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Leroy Wright, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1909 TERRENCE LEROY WRIGHT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WANDA BROOMS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-mc-00003-MR-DLH) Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Leroy Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Leroy Wright appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Brooms, No. 2:11-mc-00003-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. May 30, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
