Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wallace v. NC Dept of Corr, 96-7487 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7487 Visitors: 33
Filed: Feb. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7487 JAMES G. WALLACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JANICE WALLACE, Plaintiff, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; SERGEANT FERGUSON; JAY J. CLARK; MRS. CLARK; BOB LEWIS; RUBBY BRANDON; J. R. HUNT; BRIAN WALTERS; MR. LAMB; T. WATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-494-5-H) Submit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7487 JAMES G. WALLACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JANICE WALLACE, Plaintiff, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; SERGEANT FERGUSON; JAY J. CLARK; MRS. CLARK; BOB LEWIS; RUBBY BRANDON; J. R. HUNT; BRIAN WALTERS; MR. LAMB; T. WATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-494-5-H) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James G. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) com- plaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Liti- gation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wallace v. North Carolina Dep't of Corr., No. CA-96-494-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 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. DISMISSED 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