Filed: Apr. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8517 DAVID MAURICE BEATTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR LINCOLN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge; Wallace Wade Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-983) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8517 DAVID MAURICE BEATTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR LINCOLN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge; Wallace Wade Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-983) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8517 DAVID MAURICE BEATTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR LINCOLN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge; Wallace Wade Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-983) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Maurice Beatty, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and a magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and magistrate judge. Beatty v. Lincoln, No. CA-95-983 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 4 & 22, 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
