Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7039 MARION EDWARD PEARSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. BENNETT; ERNEST SUTTON; CARL E. BATTLE; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; LEVI BROTHERS, JR., Sergeant; LEWIS CARTER, II, Unit Manager; WILLIAM BASNIGHT, III, Assistant Unit Manager; OFFICER HARRIS; JANE DOE, Nurse Contractor; JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, Librarian, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7039 MARION EDWARD PEARSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. BENNETT; ERNEST SUTTON; CARL E. BATTLE; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; LEVI BROTHERS, JR., Sergeant; LEWIS CARTER, II, Unit Manager; WILLIAM BASNIGHT, III, Assistant Unit Manager; OFFICER HARRIS; JANE DOE, Nurse Contractor; JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, Librarian, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7039 MARION EDWARD PEARSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. BENNETT; ERNEST SUTTON; CARL E. BATTLE; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; LEVI BROTHERS, JR., Sergeant; LEWIS CARTER, II, Unit Manager; WILLIAM BASNIGHT, III, Assistant Unit Manager; OFFICER HARRIS; JANE DOE, Nurse Contractor; JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, Librarian, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-196-5-H) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Pearson v. Bennett, No. CA-02-196-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 4, 2002). 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