Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Armistead v. Laura Watson, 19-6629 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6629 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6629 JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAURA P. WATSON; JENNIE BOWEN; TIMOTHY WARE; ROGER SHACKLEFORD; MOSE DORSEY; SETH EDWARDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03274-BO) Submitted: June 7, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6629


JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

LAURA P. WATSON; JENNIE BOWEN; TIMOTHY WARE; ROGER
SHACKLEFORD; MOSE DORSEY; SETH EDWARDS,

                     Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03274-BO)


Submitted: June 7, 2019                                           Decided: June 24, 2019


Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      James Gregory Armistead 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) (2012). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending

motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Armistead v. Watson,

No. 5:18-ct-03274-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2019).        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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer