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)
04-2102•Albert Thomas, Jr v. SCOTT HALL, Officer, in his individual
04-2102Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 13, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2102
ALBERT THOMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SCOTT HALL, Officer, in his individual and
official capacity as a police officer of
Roanoke Rapids Police Department; HAROLD
PHILLIPS, Officer, in his individual and
official capacity as a police officer of
Roanoke Rapids Police Department; BO FORSHT,
Officer, in his individual and official
capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids
Police Department; JAMAL BRYANT, Officer, in
his individual and official capacity as a
police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police
Department; DAVID BROWN, Officer, in his
individual and official capacity as a police
officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-28-40-H)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Albert Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,
SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Albert Thomas, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
awarding summary judgment to defendants and dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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
Thomas v. Hall, No. CA-03-28-40-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2004). We
grant Thomas’s motion to supplement his informal brief and deny his
motion to appoint appellate counsel. 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.