Filed: Jan. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7362 DEE DEIDRE FARMER; WILLIAM CHERRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor; JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, 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-95-440-5-CT-H) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7362 DEE DEIDRE FARMER; WILLIAM CHERRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor; JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, 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-95-440-5-CT-H) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7362
DEE DEIDRE FARMER; WILLIAM CHERRY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit
Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor;
JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer,
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-95-440-5-CT-H)
Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996
Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dee Deidre Farmer, William Cherry, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying re-
lief on their Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and
the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Farmer v.
Pennington, No. CA-95-440-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 1995). We dis-
pense 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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Nar-
cotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2