Filed: Aug. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6829 STANLEY ROBIN FURR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL STAFF, NCDOC Medical Staff at Columbus Correctional Center; CATHARINE KAPOR; CHARLES STEWART; PATRICK CAMPBELL, 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-00-39-5-F3) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6829 STANLEY ROBIN FURR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL STAFF, NCDOC Medical Staff at Columbus Correctional Center; CATHARINE KAPOR; CHARLES STEWART; PATRICK CAMPBELL, 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-00-39-5-F3) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6829 STANLEY ROBIN FURR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL STAFF, NCDOC Medical Staff at Columbus Correctional Center; CATHARINE KAPOR; CHARLES STEWART; PATRICK CAMPBELL, 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-00-39-5-F3) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Robin Furr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Robin Furr appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Furr v. Medical Staff, No. CA-00-39-5-F3 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2000). 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
