16 F. 3d 410 - Phillips v. J C Woolard
16 F3d 410 Phillips v. J C Woolard
James Edward PHILLIPS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
J. C. WOOLARD, individual and in his capacity as Magistrate
of the District Court of North Carolina; Willie Lee
Lumpkin, III, individually and in his capacity as Judge of
the District Court of North Carolina; H. Horton Roundtree,
Individually and in his capacity as Judge of the District of
North Carolina; Jerry F. Waddell, Individually and in his
capacity as former Assistant District Attorney of North
Carolina; David A. Leech, individually and in his capacity
as Judge of the District Court of North Carolina; James E.
Ragan, III, individually and in his capacity as Judge of the
District Court of North Carolina; Lowell Ray Hacker,
individually and as a former Drug and Alcohol Coordinator
for the Neuse Center for Mental Health; Penny G. Wilson,
individually and in her capacity as Magistrate of the
District Court of North Carolina, Defendants Appellees.
No. 93-7002.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 1993.
Decided: Jan. 6, 1994.
16 F.3d 410
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-54-4-H)
James Edward Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.
Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary Hamilton Clemmons, STUBBS, PERDUE, CHESNUTT, WHEELER & CLEMMONS, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Advertisement
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Phillips v. Woolard, No. CA-93-54-4-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
The Motion for oral argument is denied.
AFFIRMED