Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cousins v. NC Department Corr, 95-7684 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7684 Visitors: 51
Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7684 DAVID S. COUSINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LIEUTENANT MURRAY; SERGEANT TUCK; SERGEANT BASKET; OFFICER WILDER; OFFICER DUKE, 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-93-761-5-H) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7684 DAVID S. COUSINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LIEUTENANT MURRAY; SERGEANT TUCK; SERGEANT BASKET; OFFICER WILDER; OFFICER DUKE, 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-93-761-5-H) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CARO- LINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cousins v. North Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-93-761-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED 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