Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Powell v. King, 04-7752 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7752 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7752 ANTONIO V. POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTUS KING, Lieutenant; CLARENCE, Sergeant; COLLIN WHITAKER, Correctional Officer; KARL COUNCIL, Correctional Officer; LARRY HIGGS, Correctional Officer; RACHEL REYNOLDS, Nurse; OLLIE MATTHEWS, Nurse; DONNA BROWN, Nurse; JOHN GRIMES, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malc
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7752 ANTONIO V. POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTUS KING, Lieutenant; CLARENCE, Sergeant; COLLIN WHITAKER, Correctional Officer; KARL COUNCIL, Correctional Officer; LARRY HIGGS, Correctional Officer; RACHEL REYNOLDS, Nurse; OLLIE MATTHEWS, Nurse; DONNA BROWN, Nurse; JOHN GRIMES, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-102-H) Submitted: April 6, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio V. Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; William Carleton Metcalf, VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL, STARNES & DAVIS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Antonio V. Powell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint in which he alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Powell v. King, No. CA-03-102-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 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. AFFIRMED - 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