Terry v. Vance County NC
Terry v. Vance County NC
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7790
ANDERSON L. TERRY; SHAWN KNOTT; KISHA KNOTT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
VANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; DONNIE D. BYRD; THOMAS BREEDLOVE; CHARLES HAWLEY; MARTY HALL; DREW, Doctor; DIANE VARNADORE; LIEUTENANT BAINES; LIEUTENANT MORRIS; LIEUTENANT FULLER; SERGEANT JEFFERY; SERGEANT GRACE; SERGEANT HOWARD; SERGEANT MAYS; SERGEANT HICKS; OFFICER KEARNEY; OFFICER TERRY; OFFICER SCOTT; OFFICER PERRY; OFFICER FIELD; OFFICER HARRIS; OFFICER JAMES; OFFICER HART; OFFICER CRUMP; OFFICER DAVIS; OFFICER MITCHELL; OFFICER DIANE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-655-5-CT-BR)
Submitted: July 22, 1997 Decided: October 28, 1997
Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anderson L. Terry, Shawn Knott, Kisha Knott, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anderson L. Terry and his children, Shawn and Kisha Knott,
appeal the district court's order denying relief on their
42 U.S.C. § 1983(1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.
Terry v. Vance County, No. CA-96-655-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1996). To the extent that the appellants' claims may not have been
malicious within the meaning of
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(West Supp. 1997), we find them subject to dismissal as frivolous under the same statute. We deny Terry's motion to consolidate this
appeal with Terry v. Stewart, No. 96-7567, and his motion to vacate and remand to a different judge. 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 deci- sional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished