Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leach v. Valliere, 97-7425 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7425 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7425 RAYMOND EUGENE LEACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH L. VALLIERE, Correctional Officer, Piedmont Correctional Institution; BRIAN STOCKTON, Correctional Officer, Piedmont Cor- rectional Institution; JACKIE T. NULL, Unit Nurse, Piedmont Correctional Institution; RONALD E. JONES, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7425 RAYMOND EUGENE LEACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH L. VALLIERE, Correctional Officer, Piedmont Correctional Institution; BRIAN STOCKTON, Correctional Officer, Piedmont Cor- rectional Institution; JACKIE T. NULL, Unit Nurse, Piedmont Correctional Institution; RONALD E. JONES, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-772-4) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Eugene Leach, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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. Leach v. Valliere, No. CA- 96-772-4 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 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
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