Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7338 WILLIE JAMES NESMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL; ALTON ANDERSON, M.D.; OFFICER PARKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-312) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7338 WILLIE JAMES NESMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL; ALTON ANDERSON, M.D.; OFFICER PARKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-312) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7338 WILLIE JAMES NESMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL; ALTON ANDERSON, M.D.; OFFICER PARKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-312) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie James Nesmith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) 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. Nesmith v. Hill, No. CA-95-312 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1995). 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. AFFIRMED 2
