Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7090 DONALD DURRANT FARROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF DURHAM; LT. R.O. BUCHANAN, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; L. W. CONVERSE, Detective, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT, Durham County; CHIEF DEPUTY, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; THOMAS J. BONFIELD, City Manager, Durham County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Nor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7090 DONALD DURRANT FARROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF DURHAM; LT. R.O. BUCHANAN, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; L. W. CONVERSE, Detective, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT, Durham County; CHIEF DEPUTY, Durham County Sheriff’s Department; THOMAS J. BONFIELD, City Manager, Durham County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Nort..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7090
DONALD DURRANT FARROW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF DURHAM; LT. R.O. BUCHANAN, Durham County Sheriff’s
Department; L. W. CONVERSE, Detective, Durham County Sheriff’s Department;
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT, Durham County; CHIEF DEPUTY, Durham
County Sheriff’s Department; THOMAS J. BONFIELD, City Manager, Durham
County,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03304-FL)
Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Durrant Farrow, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Durrant Farrow appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Farrow v. City of Durham, No. 5:18-ct-03304-FL (E.D.N.C. July 2, 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