Filed: Dec. 08, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6893 WILLIAM EARL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL R. LEE; LYNN C. PHILLIS; JAMES B. FRENCH; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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-99-727-5-F) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6893 WILLIAM EARL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL R. LEE; LYNN C. PHILLIS; JAMES B. FRENCH; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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-99-727-5-F) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6893 WILLIAM EARL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL R. LEE; LYNN C. PHILLIS; JAMES B. FRENCH; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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-99-727-5-F) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Earl Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Earl Sanders, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sanders v. Lee, No. CA-99- 727-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 18, 2000). 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
