Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Parker, 00-6185 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6185 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6185 HENRY DAVID JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SUMMER; SERGEANT DUNN; NURSE SWISON; SERGEANT WHITE, Defendants - Appellees, and LLOYD W. PARKER; ROBERT W. SMITH; OFFICER MORE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-735-5-H) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, L
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6185 HENRY DAVID JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SUMMER; SERGEANT DUNN; NURSE SWISON; SERGEANT WHITE, Defendants - Appellees, and LLOYD W. PARKER; ROBERT W. SMITH; OFFICER MORE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-735-5-H) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry David Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis Oscar Massey, II, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry David Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Johnson v. Parker, No. CA-98-735-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2000). We also deny Johnson’s motions for production of a transcript at government expense, for emergency relief, and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer