Filed: Dec. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6802 VERNON L. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, JR., Superintendent; OFFICER CASTRO, Mail Clerk; CHARLES HILL; DARLYN WHITE; LARRY DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-702-5) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6802 VERNON L. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, JR., Superintendent; OFFICER CASTRO, Mail Clerk; CHARLES HILL; DARLYN WHITE; LARRY DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-702-5) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6802 VERNON L. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, JR., Superintendent; OFFICER CASTRO, Mail Clerk; CHARLES HILL; DARLYN WHITE; LARRY DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-702-5) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon L. Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Herre Erwin, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) 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. Quinn v. Hunt, No. CA-96- 702-5 (E.D.N.C. May 15, 1997). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2