Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7758 ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MASSENBURG; BRYON HERBEL, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-883-5-BO) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7758 ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MASSENBURG; BRYON HERBEL, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-883-5-BO) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7758 ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MASSENBURG; BRYON HERBEL, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-883-5-BO) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Morris Cochran, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cochran v. Massenburg, No. CA-95-883-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 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 2
