Shaw v. Hunt
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH SHAW, a/k/a Jelani Husani Simba, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CARL GENE BALLARD; NATHAN PHILLIPS, JR., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES BAXTER HUNT, JR.; MACK JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; RUBY S. BRANDON; JACK V. TURLINGTON; RANNY FUTRELL; R. R. RIVENBARK; JAMES BYRUM; TRACY LEE UNDERWOOD; D. WALKER; SERGEANT CORBETTMOORE; S. MURPHY; DAVID SOMEESE; CORR OFFICER CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, PHIPPS; R. R. RIVENBARK; S. COLLINS; STEWART, Correctional Officer; JOSEPH LABELL; SERGEANT SUTTON; D. LEWIS; MICHAEL T. BELL, Defendants - Appellees and LIEUTENANT AUTRY; GEROTHA R. SPAIN; J. BAKER WILLIAMS; JACKIE BANNERMAN; RAY KRYNICKI; T. THELMA SMITH; AGNES J. ALLER, Nurse; CATHY S. DIXON; W. THOMPSON; JOANNE WISE; MICHAEL EDWARDS Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-ct-000691-F)
April 17, 2008
April 21, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, Elizabeth F. Parsons, William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles T. Cunningham, PEEBLES & SCHRAMM, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: Joseph Shaw appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed
Accordingly, we affirm Shaw v. Hunt, No.
for the reasons stated by the district court. 5:98-ct-000691-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2007).
We dispense with 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?