Filed: May 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6029 JAMES CECIL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; PHYLLIS ELLIOT; SAMUEL MCCABE; MOHAMMAD BALOCH, Medical Director, 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-94-658-5-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6029 JAMES CECIL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; PHYLLIS ELLIOT; SAMUEL MCCABE; MOHAMMAD BALOCH, Medical Director, 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-94-658-5-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6029 JAMES CECIL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; PHYLLIS ELLIOT; SAMUEL MCCABE; MOHAMMAD BALOCH, Medical Director, 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-94-658-5-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Cecil Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Freeman, No. CA-94-658-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 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
