U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Henderson v. State of NC

Henderson v. State of NC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 18, 1998

Henderson v. State of NC

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1141

SAMUEL HENDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BLUE RIDGE MENTAL ASSOCIATION; ASHEVILLE BUNCOMBE COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL; BUNCOMBE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT; ASHEVILLE HEAD, NECK & EAR SUR- GEONS, P.A.; CLERK OF COURT OF HENDERSON COUNTY, Henderson, NC; BUNCOMBE COUNTY SUPE- RIOR COURT, Asheville, NC; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-97-279-1-C)

Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Henderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Steuart Ambrose, Richard Earl Slipsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Earl Matney, III, MATNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina; Martha Walker-McGlohon, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina; Isaac Noyes Northup, Jr., Jacqueline Denise Grant, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing Appel- lant’s civil rights claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for fail- ure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henderson v. North Carolina, No. CA-97-279-1-C (W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 1997). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.