Langdon v. Malone

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2004
Docket03-2001
StatusUnpublished

This text of Langdon v. Malone (Langdon v. Malone) 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.

Bluebook
Langdon v. Malone, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2001

CHRISTOPHER LANGDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. L. MALONE; JERRY BREWER; ED GREEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-5-BO)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Langdon, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Cooper, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert Orr Crawford, III, Lisa Carol Glover, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing his

civil action. Our review of the record discloses no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Langdon v. Malone, No. CA-02-189-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. filed July 25, 2003 & entered July 26, 2003). We deny

the Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We deny Langdon’s motions:

(1) to file a supplemental informal brief out of time, (2) to stay

the appeal, (3) for sanctions, (4) for appointment of counsel, (5)

to consolidate, and (6) for an extension of time to file a response

to the Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We also deny Langdon’s

motion for 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Langdon v. Malone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langdon-v-malone-ca4-2004.