Robinson v. Cranford
This text of Robinson v. Cranford (Robinson v. Cranford) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6433
MELVIN EUGENE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DWIGHT CRANFORD; MELISSA D. PELFREY; JAMES G. HARRIS,
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-03-145-5-BO)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Eugene Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Melvin Eugene Robinson 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
Robinson v. Cranford, No. CA-03-145-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2003).
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
Robinson v. Cranford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-cranford-ca4-2003.