Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7276 ROY DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BALOCH; DOCTOR UMESI; NURSE DAVIS; NURSE BAGAODA, 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-97-565) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7276 ROY DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BALOCH; DOCTOR UMESI; NURSE DAVIS; NURSE BAGAODA, 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-97-565) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7276 ROY DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BALOCH; DOCTOR UMESI; NURSE DAVIS; NURSE BAGAODA, 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-97-565) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roy Dickerson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. See Dickerson v. Baloch, No. CA-97-565 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
