Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lee v. Bennett, 03-7053 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7053 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7053 AVERY LEDYARD LEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons at North Carolina Department of Corrections; ROY COOPER, Honorable, North Carolina Department of Justice; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Governor; GARY MILLER, Superintendent; E. R. HARRIS, Program Supervisor/Unit Manager; SAMMY JACKSON, Correctional Officer, Southern Correctional Institution; FRANCIS GREEN, Case Analyst/Case Manager/Program As
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7053 AVERY LEDYARD LEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons at North Carolina Department of Corrections; ROY COOPER, Honorable, North Carolina Department of Justice; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Governor; GARY MILLER, Superintendent; E. R. HARRIS, Program Supervisor/Unit Manager; SAMMY JACKSON, Correctional Officer, Southern Correctional Institution; FRANCIS GREEN, Case Analyst/Case Manager/Program Assistant at Southern Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-423-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Avery Ledyard Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Avery Ledyard Lee, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lee v. Bennett, No. CA- 03-423-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2003). 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. 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