Filed: Nov. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7086 KEVIN EDWARD HEDGEPETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. WILKES, police officer; ANDREW MURRAY; JOHN DOE; MARTHA H. CURRAN; LISA C. BELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00262-RJC) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7086 KEVIN EDWARD HEDGEPETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. WILKES, police officer; ANDREW MURRAY; JOHN DOE; MARTHA H. CURRAN; LISA C. BELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00262-RJC) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD an..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7086 KEVIN EDWARD HEDGEPETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. WILKES, police officer; ANDREW MURRAY; JOHN DOE; MARTHA H. CURRAN; LISA C. BELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00262-RJC) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Edward Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Edward Hedgepeth appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hedgepeth v. Wilkes, No. 3:12-cv-00262-RJC (W.D.N.C. June 11, 2012). 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
