Filed: Jan. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6418 EDWARD R. MCMILLAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. C. JONES, C/O Harnett Correctional Institution, 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-03240-H) Submitted: December 22, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6418 EDWARD R. MCMILLAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. C. JONES, C/O Harnett Correctional Institution, 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-03240-H) Submitted: December 22, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6418
EDWARD R. MCMILLAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. C. JONES, C/O Harnett Correctional Institution,
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-03240-H)
Submitted: December 22, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward R. McMillan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Kari Russwurm Johnson, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward R. McMillan 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. McMillan v. Jones, No. 5:14-ct-03240-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 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