Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6570 DOUGLAS JAMES UPRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB SMITH; NURSE BARRY; NURSE WAVER; DOCTOR LANE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-154-5-BR) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as m
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6570 DOUGLAS JAMES UPRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB SMITH; NURSE BARRY; NURSE WAVER; DOCTOR LANE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-154-5-BR) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as mo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6570 DOUGLAS JAMES UPRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB SMITH; NURSE BARRY; NURSE WAVER; DOCTOR LANE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-154-5-BR) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas James Upright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. Upright v. Smith, No. CA-96-154-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 1996). 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 AS MODIFIED 2
