Filed: Dec. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1846 SIDNEY B. HARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, President; DUKE UNIVERSITY, c/o Pamela J. Bernard, General Counsel; ASSOCIATED PRESS; DAVID F. LEVI, Dean, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00304-CCE-JLW) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before G
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1846 SIDNEY B. HARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, President; DUKE UNIVERSITY, c/o Pamela J. Bernard, General Counsel; ASSOCIATED PRESS; DAVID F. LEVI, Dean, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00304-CCE-JLW) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1846 SIDNEY B. HARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, President; DUKE UNIVERSITY, c/o Pamela J. Bernard, General Counsel; ASSOCIATED PRESS; DAVID F. LEVI, Dean, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00304-CCE-JLW) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sidney B. Harr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sidney B. Harr appeals the district court’s order dismissing on res judicata grounds his civil action against Defendants, and imposing a prefiling injunction against and sanctions on Harr. We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harr v. Brodhead, No. 1:16-cv-00304- CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C. June 30, 2016). 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
