Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

David S. Cousins v. North Carolina Department of Corrections Lieutenant Murray Sergeant Tuck Sergeant Basket Officer Wilder Officer Duke, 95-7684 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7684 Visitors: 58
Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 81 F.3d 149 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. David S. COUSINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Lieutenant Murray; Sergeant Tuck; Sergeant Basket; Officer Wilder; Officer Duke, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-7684. United States Court of App
More

81 F.3d 149

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David S. COUSINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Lieutenant
Murray; Sergeant Tuck; Sergeant Basket; Officer
Wilder; Officer Duke, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7684.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 1996.
Decided March 29, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-761-5-H)

David S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cousins v. North Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-93-761-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 1995). 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

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