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)
11-1303•Launeil Sanders v. PETER S. GILCHRIST, Mecklenburg County City Attorney
11-1303Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 5, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1303
LAUNEIL SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETER S. GILCHRIST, Mecklenburg County City Attorney; MORGAN
STANLEY SMITH BARNEY FINANCIAL, LLC; DANIEL CLIFTON, Attorney;
EDWARD L. BOOKER, Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00068-MOC-DSC)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Launeil Sanders appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find
that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v.
Gilchrist, No. 3:10-cv-00068-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2011).
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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.