Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

92-6264 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6264 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 10, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 339 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. LARRY D. EASTERLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE BOARD OR COMMISSIONERS, Each in his/her official and individual capacities; NORTH CAROLINA SECRETARY OF CORRECTION, in his official and individual capacities, Defe
More

972 F.2d 339

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
LARRY D. EASTERLING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE BOARD OR COMMISSIONERS, Each in
his/her official and individual capacities; NORTH CAROLINA
SECRETARY OF CORRECTION, in his official and individual
capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6264.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 1992
Decided: August 10, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-91-407-CRT-BR, CA-91-1413-CRT-BR)

Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Larry D. Easterling, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Larry D. Easterling appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Easterling v. North Carolina Parole Bd. or Comm'rs, Nos. CA-91-407-CRT-BR, CA-911413-CRT-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 1991). 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

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