Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2000 BURL ANDERSON HOWELL; ALICE ANNETTE HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellants, v. DANIEL M. HORNE, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00126-BO) Submitted: December 18, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2000 BURL ANDERSON HOWELL; ALICE ANNETTE HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellants, v. DANIEL M. HORNE, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00126-BO) Submitted: December 18, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2000
BURL ANDERSON HOWELL; ALICE ANNETTE HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellants,
v.
DANIEL M. HORNE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00126-BO)
Submitted: December 18, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Burl Anderson Howell, Alice A. Howell, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr.,
Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Burl Anderson Howell and Alice Annette Howell appeal the district court’s order
dismissing their 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. See Howell v. Horne, No. 5:17-cv-00126-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2017). 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