Eddie Gamble, Sr. v. Vernessa Craddock
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999607943-2] Originating case number: 5:11-ct-03176-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999678489].. [15-6875]
Appeal: 15-6875
Doc: 20
Filed: 10/15/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6875
EDDIE GAMBLE, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERNESSA CRADDOCK,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
L. T. WRIGHT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03176-FL)
Submitted:
September 29, 2015
Decided:
October 15, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Gamble, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lockridge, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6875
Doc: 20
Filed: 10/15/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Gamble, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
denying
relief
on
several
postjudgment
motions
in
his
action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
confine
our
brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
does
not
review
challenge
disposition,
court’s
to
Gamble
order.
the
the
has
issues
raised
in
On appeal, we
the
Appellant’s
Because Gamble’s informal brief
basis
forfeited
Accordingly,
we
for
the
district
appellate
deny
review
Gamble’s
court’s
of
the
motion
for
appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?