Filed: Dec. 05, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7527 THOMAS JAMES HARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE E. CURRIE; JAMES CHAPELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VINSON; SERGEANT MCRAE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-597-5) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7527 THOMAS JAMES HARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE E. CURRIE; JAMES CHAPELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VINSON; SERGEANT MCRAE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-597-5) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7527 THOMAS JAMES HARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE E. CURRIE; JAMES CHAPELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VINSON; SERGEANT MCRAE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-597-5) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas James Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas James Harrell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (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 Harrell v. Currie, No. CA-03- 597-5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 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
