White v. Balldown
This text of White v. Balldown (White v. Balldown) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6658
MAURICE WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MS. BALLDOWN; L. SMITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-137-3)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Maurice White appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See White v. Balldown, No.
CA-05-137-3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 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
White v. Balldown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-balldown-ca4-2005.