Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6007 SENTELLUS MCDONALD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. NICHOLSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03103-H) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sentellus McDonald, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6007 SENTELLUS MCDONALD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. NICHOLSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03103-H) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6007
SENTELLUS MCDONALD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. NICHOLSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03103-H)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sentellus McDonald appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
McDonald v. Nicholson, No. 5:14-ct-03103-H (E.D.N.C. June 10,
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