The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-7415•Michael Rankins v. Leonard Bonner
01-7415Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 28, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7415
MICHAEL RANKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LEONARD BONNER,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
GREGORY BONNER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-99-744-5-H)
Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Louis Phillip Hornthal, Jr.,
HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Rankins appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Rankins v. Bonner, No. CA-99-744-5-H
(E.D.N.C. July 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.