Court Opinion

ID: 9930440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:21.920355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:37.978785
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6582      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6582

        JULIAN TERELL FURR,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CHIEF OF SELMA POLICE DEPARTMENT; THOMAS LOCK; DIRECTOR OF
        NCIS; DIRECTOR OF NC SBI; JOHNSTON COUNTY; MICHAEL F. EASLEY;
        MERRICK B. GARLAND; DONALD TRUMP; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
        JOHNSTON COUNTY; JOE BIDEN; COMMANDANT OF MARINE CORP.;
        SERGEANT MAJOR OF MARINES,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03455-BO-RJ)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julian Terell Furr, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6582         Doc: 10      Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Julian Terell Furr appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and conclude

        that the district court appropriately determined that Furr’s amended complaint failed to

        state a claim for relief against any of the Defendants. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. Furr v. Chief of Selma Police Dep’t, No. 5:22-ct-03455-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.

        June 1, 2023). 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