Edward L. Holley, Plaintiff--appellant, v. Karen Fleetwood; Sergeant Bonner, Defendants--appellees, 47 F.3d 1165 (4th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseEdward L. Holley, Appellant Pro Se. William Thomas Culpepper, III, Edenton, North Carolina; Samuel Bobbitt Dixon, WHITE, HALL & DIXON, Elizabeth City, NC, for Appellees.
Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holley v. Fleetwood, No. CA-91-668 (E.D.N.C. July 25, 1994). We deny Appellant's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*
AFFIRMED.
Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
