Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moses v. Blocher, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Edward Lee Moses's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Moses relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6132

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Edward Lee Moses's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Moses relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Moses v. Blocher, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Edward Lee Moses's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Moses relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6132

    EDWARD LEE MOSES,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    M. BLOCHER;
    PIMPONG,

    MICHAEL

    HARDEE;

    HUGH

    MARTIN,

    JR.;

    HATTIE

    B.

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    District Judge. (5:07-ct-03070-D)

    Submitted:

    May 21, 2009

    Decided:

    May 29, 2009

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Edward Lee Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Lee Moses appeals the district courts order
    and

    judgment

    dismiss

    and

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.

    We

    have

    reviewed

    granting

    the

    the

    record

    Appellees

    and

    find

    motion

    no

    to

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    See Moses v. Blocher, No. 5:07-ct-03070-D (E.D.N.C. Jan.

    court.

    16, 2009).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like