Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6699 NORMAN BEN ASKEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUTCH JACKSON; RICHARD O. BROADWELL, III; DREW STANLEY, Defendants - Appellees. 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-03192-H) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6699 NORMAN BEN ASKEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUTCH JACKSON; RICHARD O. BROADWELL, III; DREW STANLEY, Defendants - Appellees. 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-03192-H) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6699
NORMAN BEN ASKEW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BUTCH JACKSON; RICHARD O. BROADWELL, III; DREW STANLEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
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-03192-H)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Ben Askew, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street
Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norman Ben Askew appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Askew
v. Jackson, No. 5:14-ct-03192-H (E.D.N.C. May 3, 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