Filed: Jun. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6216 JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES FLOYD AMMONS, JR., Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03081-D) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6216 JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES FLOYD AMMONS, JR., Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03081-D) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6216
JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES FLOYD AMMONS, JR., Senior Resident Superior Court Judge,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03081-D)
Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Eugene Brunson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Eugene Brunson appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brunson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2018) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brunson v. Ammons, No. 5:19-ct-
03081-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2020). 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