Filed: Apr. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6028 KEVIN ANDRE RANKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH LIGHTSEY, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee, and JENNY CRAIG; M. BOONE, sued in their individual capacities; SELMA TOWNES, sued in her individual capacity and official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-483-5-H) Submitted: March 15, 2004 De
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6028 KEVIN ANDRE RANKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH LIGHTSEY, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee, and JENNY CRAIG; M. BOONE, sued in their individual capacities; SELMA TOWNES, sued in her individual capacity and official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-483-5-H) Submitted: March 15, 2004 Dec..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6028 KEVIN ANDRE RANKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH LIGHTSEY, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee, and JENNY CRAIG; M. BOONE, sued in their individual capacities; SELMA TOWNES, sued in her individual capacity and official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-483-5-H) Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Andre Rankin, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kevin Andre Rankin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rankin v. Lightsey, No. CA-02-483-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 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. AFFIRMED - 3 -
