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)
03-6070•Lester Daniel Bryson v. ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge
03-6070Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 6, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6070
LESTER DANIEL BRYSON; JOHN FRANK BOWEN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court
Judge; FORREST D. BRIDGES, State Superior
Court Judge; GRAHAM C. MULLEN, Federal
District Court Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CA-02-252-1-2)
Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lester Daniel Bryson, John Frank Bowen, Appellants Pro Se. Gerald
Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen appeal the district
court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Bryson v. Johnston, No. CA-02-252-1-2 (W.D.N.C. filed
Nov. 22, 2002 & entered Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Appellants’ motions
for appointment of counsel, for oral argument, and to dismiss as
untimely the informal brief of Appellees Johnston and Bridges. We
further deny as moot Appellants’ motion to extend time to file PLRA
documents and their informal brief. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.