Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clegg v. Davis, 01-6406 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6406 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6406 JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY DAVIS, Nurse; C.L. WOODY, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-199-5-F) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 01-6406



JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


SHIRLEY DAVIS, Nurse; C.L. WOODY, Correctional
Officer,

                                               Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-199-5-F)


Submitted:   August 23, 2001                 Decided:   August 29, 2001


Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jeffrey Scott Clegg, Appellant Pro Se.      Deborrah Lynn Newton,
Assistant Attorney General, Jane Ray Garvey, William Dennis Worley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Jeffrey Scott Clegg appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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.

Clegg v. Davis, No. CA-99-199-5-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001).     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

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