Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
17-6907•Shan Edward Carter v. John W. Sherrill
17-6907Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit03.10.2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6907
SHAN EDWARD CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN W. SHERRILL; BENJAMIN R. DAVID; JAY D. HOCKENBURY;
KRISTIN D. PARKS; MARGARET T. CLOUTIER; WILLIAM H. DURHAM;
ROY A. COOPER, III; PHYLLIS M. GORHAM; D. JACK HOOKS, JR.;
SHERRI HORNER-LAWRENCE; GEORGE P. CORVIN; N.C. STATE BAR;
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03272-D)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shan Edward Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shan Edward Carter appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Carter v. Sherill, No. 5:16-ct-03272-D (E.D.N.C. June 13 & July 17,
2017). We also deny Carter’s motion to assign counsel. 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.