Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6912 ADAM WADE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL STIENEKE; T. SHAW, Correctional Offi- cer; SUPERINTENDENT MCDADE; SERGEANT WARREN; SERGEANT HENRY WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-354-5-BR) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WILKINS and WILLI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6912 ADAM WADE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL STIENEKE; T. SHAW, Correctional Offi- cer; SUPERINTENDENT MCDADE; SERGEANT WARREN; SERGEANT HENRY WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-354-5-BR) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WILKINS and WILLIA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6912 ADAM WADE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL STIENEKE; T. SHAW, Correctional Offi- cer; SUPERINTENDENT MCDADE; SERGEANT WARREN; SERGEANT HENRY WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-354-5-BR) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adam Wade Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Dorothy Powers, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Adam Wade Owens 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 accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v. Stieneke, No. CA-99-354-5-BR (E.D.N.C. May 25, 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