Eddie Gamble, Sr. v. Vernessa Craddock


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6875 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6875 EDDIE GAMBLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERNESSA CRADDOCK, Defendant – Appellee, and L.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?