Filed: Jul. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6249 DANIEL PETERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT MS. JAMES; SERGEANT MS. RICHARDSON, at Nash Correctional Institution; CHARLES HILL, at Nash Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN TUCK, at Nash Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00501-BO) Submitted: June 25,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6249 DANIEL PETERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT MS. JAMES; SERGEANT MS. RICHARDSON, at Nash Correctional Institution; CHARLES HILL, at Nash Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN TUCK, at Nash Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00501-BO) Submitted: June 25, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6249 DANIEL PETERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT MS. JAMES; SERGEANT MS. RICHARDSON, at Nash Correctional Institution; CHARLES HILL, at Nash Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN TUCK, at Nash Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00501-BO) Submitted: June 25, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Peterson 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. Peterson v. James, No. 5:05-ct-00501-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 15, 2007). 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 -
