Court Opinion

ID: 9405648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:54.320779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.135303
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6104      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6104

        MATTHEW DOUGLAS MESSER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CHRIS BUNTING, Correctional Officer; CRAVEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
        DEPARTMENT; CRAVEN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; CHIP HUGHES, Craven
        County Sheriff,

                             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-03065-BO)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew Douglas Messer, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Florencio Castro, WOMBLE BOND
        DICKINSON LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6104      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Matthew Douglas Messer appeals the district court’s dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

        Messer v. Bunting, No. 5:22-ct-03065-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 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