Theodus Lindsay, Jr. v. William Glick, III


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--Motion to appoint/assign counsel is denied [1000058855-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00596-LCB-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000143818]. Mailed to: Theodus Lindsay. [17-6400]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6400 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/25/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6400 THEODUS LINDSAY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM GLICK, III; MR. BRANDHORST; MS. BARRINGER; CORDELIA MCBRIDE; EBONY RATLIFF; MR. HILDRETH; MR. HUNEYCUTT; MS. ROBINSON; MR. LOOKABILL; MS. BRUTON; MR. PARSONS; MR. HARGRAVE; MR. BRADFORD; MACRE CRIDER; VICTOR LOCKLEAR; MONICA BOND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00596-LCB-JLW) Submitted: August 15, 2017 Decided: August 25, 2017 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodus Lindsay, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tammera Sudderth Hill, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6400 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/25/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Theodus Lindsay, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lindsay’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lindsay v. Glick, No. 1:15-cv-00596-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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?