Berry v. Porterfield
This text of Berry v. Porterfield (Berry v. Porterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7857
WILLIE LEE BERRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. TIMOTHY PORTERFIELD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00311-GCM)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Lee Berry, Appellant Pro. Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Willie Lee Berry appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Berry v. Porterfield, No. 3:08-cv-00311-GCM (W.D.N.C.
Aug. 1, 2008). 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Berry v. Porterfield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-porterfield-ca4-2009.