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)
09-6132•Edward Lee Moses v. M. Blocher; Michael Hardee; Hugh Martin, Jr.; Hattie B. Pimpong
09-6132Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 29, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6132
EDWARD LEE MOSES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. BLOCHER; MICHAEL HARDEE; HUGH MARTIN, JR.; HATTIE B.
PIMPONG,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Lee Moses appeals the district court’s order
and judgment granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Moses v. Blocher, No. 5:07-ct-03070-D (E.D.N.C. Jan.
16, 2009). 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.