Lancaster v. Casey
This text of Lancaster v. Casey (Lancaster v. Casey) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6077
MILTON E. LANCASTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
W.C. CASEY; JERRY MONETTE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00586-BO)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton E. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Milton E. Lancaster appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Lancaster v. Casey, No. 5:05-ct-00586-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov.
4, 2005). 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 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lancaster v. Casey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lancaster-v-casey-ca4-2006.