Hood v. Murphy
Hood v. Murphy
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6596
FRANCIS CLAYTON HOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER MURPHY; OFFICER LEGGETT; OFFICER SENTIRO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-94-590-5-BO)
Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francis Clayton Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
his
42 U.S.C. § 1983(1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hood v. Murphy, No. CA-94-590-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 1996). We deny Ap-
pellees' motion to dismiss the appeal based on Appellant's untimely
filing and service of his informal brief. 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.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished