Sherwin v. Piner

Fourth Circuit

Sherwin v. Piner

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2004

Docket03-2150

StatusUnpublished

This text of Sherwin v. Piner (Sherwin v. Piner) 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

Sherwin v. Piner, (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2150

CHARLES T. SHERWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAT PINER; HAROLD MAYNARD; SUSAN BRIGGS; STEPHEN KUSHNER; KIMBERLY LEDFORD; GEORGE GLENN, II; STEVEN GHEEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-275-5-H)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer Anderson, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina; John Francis Morris, MORRIS, YORK, WILLIAMS, SURLES & BARRINGER, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Joseph C. Moore, III, ALLEN & MOORE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Myra Leake Griffin, NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Sherwin appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the

judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court, see Sherwin v. Piner, No. CA-03-

275-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed July 21, 2003; entered July 22, 2003 &

filed Aug. 11, 2003; entered Aug. 12, 2003), and we deny Sherwin’s

motion for remand. 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

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2150

CHARLES T. SHERWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAT PINER; HAROLD MAYNARD; SUSAN BRIGGS; STEPHEN KUSHNER; KIMBERLY LEDFORD; GEORGE GLENN, II; STEVEN GHEEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-275-5-H)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer Anderson, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina; John Francis Morris, MORRIS, YORK, WILLIAMS, SURLES & BARRINGER, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Joseph C. Moore, III, ALLEN & MOORE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Myra Leake Griffin, NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Sherwin appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the

judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court, see Sherwin v. Piner, No. CA-03-

275-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed July 21, 2003; entered July 22, 2003 &

filed Aug. 11, 2003; entered Aug. 12, 2003), and we deny Sherwin’s

motion for remand. 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

- 3 -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sherwin v. Piner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwin-v-piner-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack