Court Opinion

ID: 9892259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-21 21:00:37.589421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:46.620916
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6376      Doc: 15         Filed: 10/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6376         Doc: 15     Filed: 10/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 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