Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lee v. Suther, 96-6475 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6475 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6475 ROBERT WILLIAM LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. LEE; DR. ANDERSON; NURSE WOODS; NURSE ALEXANDER; NURSE CASHWELL, Defendants - Appellees, and DR. SUTHER; JOHN DOE, Sgt.; NURSE JACOBS; NURSE SUTTON; JOHN DOE, Dr.; DR. PARFITT; CAPE FEAR VALLEY HOSPITAL; DR. WHITEHURST; DURHAM REGIONAL HOSPITAL; DR. GRIMES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleig
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6475 ROBERT WILLIAM LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. LEE; DR. ANDERSON; NURSE WOODS; NURSE ALEXANDER; NURSE CASHWELL, Defendants - Appellees, and DR. SUTHER; JOHN DOE, Sgt.; NURSE JACOBS; NURSE SUTTON; JOHN DOE, Dr.; DR. PARFITT; CAPE FEAR VALLEY HOSPITAL; DR. WHITEHURST; DURHAM REGIONAL HOSPITAL; DR. GRIMES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-94-271-5-BR, CA-94-455-5-BR) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert W. Lee appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lee v. Suther, Nos. CA-94-271-5-BR; CA-94-455-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1994; June 23, Aug. 16 and Aug. 28, 1995; Feb. 29, 1996). We dis- pense 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