Filed: Mar. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8412 ROBERT H. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8412 ROBERT H. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8412 ROBERT H. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert H. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert H. Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action had already been dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dixon v. Mitchell, No. 1:08-cv-00473-GCM (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2008). 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
