Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robinson v. French, 98-7377 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7377 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7377 CORNELIOUS ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LATEEF AZEEM LUTALO; DONNIE R. MORGAN; JOHN F. WEIKEL, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; SHERWOOD B. MCCABE; DAUNA BERTRUM; GEORGE L. JONES; JAMES E. STRICKLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-401-5) Submitted: February 11, 19
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7377 CORNELIOUS ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LATEEF AZEEM LUTALO; DONNIE R. MORGAN; JOHN F. WEIKEL, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; SHERWOOD B. MCCABE; DAUNA BERTRUM; GEORGE L. JONES; JAMES E. STRICKLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-401-5) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelious Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cornelious Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). Robinson alleges deliberate indiffer- ence to his serious medical needs and denial of First Amendment rights to a religious diet. After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, we conclude that Robinson fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and dismiss the appeal for that reason. Robinson fails to allege facts sufficient to demon- strate a constitutional violation. 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. 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