Fred Tisdell v. Terry Bullock

Filing 920090424

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8433 FRED MELVIN TISDELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TERRY BULLOCK, Superintendent Hoke Correctional Institution; CATHY WEBB, Unit Manager, Hoke C.I.; T. E. CRAIG, Correctional Officer, Hoke C.I.; AMY S. MACKEY, Physician's Assistant, Hoke C.I.; ANDREW BUSH, M.D., Physician, Duke Regional Hosp.; PHILLIP STOVER, M.D., Physician, N.C. Department of Corrections; KAY LOCKLEAR, R.N., Supervising Nurse, Lumberton Correctional Inst.; DUKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL; THEODIS BECK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00603-NCT-RAE) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Melvin Tisdell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fred Melvin Tisdell appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006), as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons Tisdell v. Bullock, No. 1:08-cv23, 2008). for We a deny Tisdell's at stated by the district court. 00603-NCT-RAE motions for (M.D.N.C. appointment Oct. of counsel, transcript government expense, for production of documents, to amend or correct the caption, and for acknowledgement of the main defendants on all forthcoming documents. 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. AFFIRMED 2

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?