Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6572 CHASTIS RAY GOMEZ NIXON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLAN CLONIGER, Sheriff; GASTON COUNTY, Municipality, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00132-RJC) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6572 CHASTIS RAY GOMEZ NIXON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLAN CLONIGER, Sheriff; GASTON COUNTY, Municipality, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00132-RJC) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6572 CHASTIS RAY GOMEZ NIXON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLAN CLONIGER, Sheriff; GASTON COUNTY, Municipality, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00132-RJC) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chastis Ray Gomez Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chastis Ray Gomez Nixon 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. Nixon v. Cloniger, No. 3:13-cv- 00132-RJC (W.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2013). 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
