Filed: Dec. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7166 GARY LEWIS MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. CREECY; B. R. HEDSPETH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODS; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; L. TYNCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-313-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7166 GARY LEWIS MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. CREECY; B. R. HEDSPETH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODS; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; L. TYNCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-313-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MO..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7166 GARY LEWIS MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. CREECY; B. R. HEDSPETH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODS; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; L. TYNCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-313-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Miller appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Creecy, No. CA-99-313-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 1999). 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
