Filed: Mar. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7769 T. THORNE-EL, Plaintiff – Appellant, and ANTHONY J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. IRVIN RYAN, JR.; A. GODFREY; MS. ROBERSON; MRS. BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-ct-03063-F) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 26, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7769 T. THORNE-EL, Plaintiff – Appellant, and ANTHONY J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. IRVIN RYAN, JR.; A. GODFREY; MS. ROBERSON; MRS. BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-ct-03063-F) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 26, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Af..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7769 T. THORNE-EL, Plaintiff – Appellant, and ANTHONY J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. IRVIN RYAN, JR.; A. GODFREY; MS. ROBERSON; MRS. BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-ct-03063-F) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 26, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. Thorne-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: T. Thorne-El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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. Thorne-El v. Ryan, No. 5:12-ct-03063-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28 & Oct. 9, 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
