The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6376•Matthew James Griffin v. Fnu Hollar
22-6376Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6376
MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FNU HOLLAR; JOHN DOE, #19-20; MARILYN GAMEWELL; FNU
MASSAGEE; FNU HENSLEY; FNU WALKER; FNU DELOZIER; FNU
STROHL; FNU MANDEVILLE; FNU COPELAND; FNU LOWERY; WILLIAM
N. JOHNSON; J. FOLLY, Doe Defendant #12; R. L. LAIL, Doe Defendant #13; L.
PUTT, Doe Defendant #14; T. B. GREENE, Doe Defendant #15; KAY H.
EGGLESTON, Doe Defendant #16; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00049-MR)
Submitted: September 27, 2023 Decided: October 20, 2023
Before WILKINSON, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew James Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew James Griffin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Griffin v. Hollar, No. 5:19-cv-00049-
MR (W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2022). We also deny Griffin’s motion to hear the appeal on the
original record. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.