Filed: Jan. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7345 JAMES D. HABURN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES, Superintendent, Wake Correctional Center; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; HAZEL KEITH, Mana- ger, Combined Records Section, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7345 JAMES D. HABURN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES, Superintendent, Wake Correctional Center; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; HAZEL KEITH, Mana- ger, Combined Records Section, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7345 JAMES D. HABURN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES, Superintendent, Wake Correctional Center; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; HAZEL KEITH, Mana- ger, Combined Records Section, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-545-5-H) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Haburn, Sr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Haburn v. Jones, No. CA-95-545-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2