Court Opinion

ID: 9902193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:43.534074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.212359
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6671      Doc: 14         Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6671

        BRIAN LEVAR WATSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CHARLES EASON,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-ct-03167-M)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brian Levar Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., Rachel Gail Posey,
        HARTZOG LAW GROUP LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6671         Doc: 14     Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Brian Levar Watson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Charles

        Eason’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. Watson v. Eason, No. 5:21-ct-03167-M (E.D.N.C. June

        21, 2023). We further grant Defendant Eason’s motion to strike the documents attached to

        Watson’s supplemental reply brief, as these documents were not considered by the district

        court. 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