U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Clark v. Hunt

Clark v. Hunt
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 11, 2000

Clark v. Hunt

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6504

EARL CARTER CLARK, JR., a/k/a Butch, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.; R. MACK JARVIS; JUANITA H.

BAKER; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR.; WILLIAM A. LOWRY; CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; PEGGY STAMEY; MARY HARROP; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; ELIZABETH F. PARSONS; SUSAN H. POLLITT; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-209-5-F(3))

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 11, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Carter Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Earl Carter Clark appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clark v. Hunt, No. CA-99-209-3-209-F3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2000). 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.