Trevor Mohammed v. Dennis Daniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999963663-2] Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03077-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000007258]. Mailed to: Trevor Mohammed. [16-7364]

Appeal: 16-7364

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7364

TREVOR MOHAMMED,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DENNIS DANIELS; WHITNEY DRIVER; JOHN HERRING; ROBERT OWENS;
JACKIE PARKER; ENNIS OATS; DONALD POLT; PAULA SMITH;
CARLTON JOYNER; BOBBY MARSHALL; ROBERT LEWIS; REBEKAH
MICKLOS, Executrix of the Estate of Defendant Dr. Donald V.
Micklos,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
DONALD MICKLOS,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03077-FL)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevor Mohammed, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh,

Yvonne Bulluck Ricci,
North Carolina; Kelly

Appeal: 16-7364

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG
HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

MOORE

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

&

Appeal: 16-7364

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Trevor Mohammed appeals the district court’s order denying
relief

on

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

Mohammed
2016).
dispense

for

v.

the

Daniels,

reasons

by

the

Accordingly,

district

We also deny Mohammed’s motion to assign counsel.

We

contentions

are

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

(E.D.N.C.

court.
31,

oral

5:13-ct-03077-FL

have

Aug.

with

No.

stated

We

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3