Gregory Dean Melvin v. Brad Perritt
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999912934-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999961303-2] Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03272-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999975635]. Mailed to: Gregory Dean Melvin 402 A Cokey Road Rocky Mount, NC 27801. [16-6999]
Appeal: 16-6999
Doc: 13
Filed: 11/28/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6999
GREGORY DEAN MELVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRAD
PERRITT,
Superintendent,
Lumberton
Correctional;
THEODORE BANKS, Programer/Rec Clerk Supervisor; STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-ct-03272-FL)
Submitted:
November 22, 2016
Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.
THACKER,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
November 28, 2016
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Dean Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6999
Doc: 13
Filed: 11/28/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory
Dean
Melvin
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
have
reviewed
Accordingly,
the
record
although
we
and
grant
find
no
reversible
leave
to
proceed
We
error.
in
forma
pauperis, we deny Melvin’s motion for appointment of counsel and
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Perritt,
No.
dispense
with
contentions
5:15-ct-03272-FL
are
oral
argument
adequately
(E.D.N.C.
because
presented
in
June
the
the
Melvin v.
17,
2016).
We
facts
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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?