Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6201 ADRIAN D. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARY POLLARD; DANIELLE M. CARMAN; TONI BANKS; THEODORE S. ROYSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00314-FDW) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6201 ADRIAN D. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARY POLLARD; DANIELLE M. CARMAN; TONI BANKS; THEODORE S. ROYSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00314-FDW) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6201
ADRIAN D. MURRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARY POLLARD; DANIELLE M. CARMAN; TONI BANKS; THEODORE S.
ROYSTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00314-FDW)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian D. Murray, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian D. Murray appeals the district court’s order
dismissing after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint, and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration and motion to amend the
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
Murray v. Pollard, No. 1:13-cv-00314-FDW (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2014;
Jan. 24, 2014). 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