Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7090 ROBERT MICHAEL PHILLIPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY BRYSON, Haywood County Jail Administrator; JIM SCHICK, Haywood County Jail Administrator/Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00136-RJC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7090 ROBERT MICHAEL PHILLIPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY BRYSON, Haywood County Jail Administrator; JIM SCHICK, Haywood County Jail Administrator/Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00136-RJC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7090
ROBERT MICHAEL PHILLIPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LARRY BRYSON, Haywood County Jail Administrator; JIM SCHICK,
Haywood County Jail Administrator/Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00136-RJC)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Michael Phillipson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Michael Phillipson appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Phillipson v. Bryson, No. 1:13-cv-00136-RJC (W.D.N.C.
June 6, 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