Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. French, 01-7156 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7156 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7156 WILLIE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; R. E. SIGNAL; S. R. MCCABE; HAROLD WILLIAMS; DR. SMITH; DOCTOR LAVIN; DR. CARTER; JOHN DOE; SERGEANT MOORE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POWELL; SERGEANT HALE; DOCTOR HATHA- WAY; DOCTOR UMESI, 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-01-234-5
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7156 WILLIE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; R. E. SIGNAL; S. R. MCCABE; HAROLD WILLIAMS; DR. SMITH; DOCTOR LAVIN; DR. CARTER; JOHN DOE; SERGEANT MOORE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POWELL; SERGEANT HALE; DOCTOR HATHA- WAY; DOCTOR UMESI, 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-01-234-5-F-3) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie J. Davis, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001), and denying Davis’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. French, No. CA-01-234-5-F-3 (E.D.N.C. filed May 30, 2001; entered May 31, 2001, and June 21, 2001; entered June 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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