Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cassell v. Jagust, 08-7602 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-7602 Visitors: 49
Filed: Feb. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7602 CHARLES M. CASSELL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR JAGUST; DOCTOR MICHALAS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03025-BO) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7602 CHARLES M. CASSELL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR JAGUST; DOCTOR MICHALAS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03025-BO) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles M. Cassell, III, 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. Cassell v. Jagust, No. 5:06-ct-03025-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2008). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for reconsideration, and for access to this and other courts. The motion “in the forma pauperis” is denied as moot. 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