Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rankins v. Currie, 04-6441 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6441 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6441 MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE CURRIE; RICHARD T. JONES; FAULK, Medical Supervisor; EARL V. ECHARD, Defendants - Appellees, and BOYD BENNETT; JOY BAREFOOT; JOHN DOES, Physician Assistant; JOHN DOES, Physician Extender; JOHN DOES, Medical Personnel; JANE DOES, Medical Personnel; DESHAZO TERRY; NURSE SNIDER; NURSE BOONE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6441 MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE CURRIE; RICHARD T. JONES; FAULK, Medical Supervisor; EARL V. ECHARD, Defendants - Appellees, and BOYD BENNETT; JOY BAREFOOT; JOHN DOES, Physician Assistant; JOHN DOES, Physician Extender; JOHN DOES, Medical Personnel; JANE DOES, Medical Personnel; DESHAZO TERRY; NURSE SNIDER; NURSE BOONE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-784-5-H) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and conclude this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rankins v. Currie, No. CA-02-784-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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