Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wrenn v. Freeman, 96-6180 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6180 Visitors: 68
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6180 CHARLES H. WRENN; KERMEDIS JACOBS; JAMES ELLIOTT PRICE, SR.; JAMES BYRD MILLER; FREDERICK W. CORBETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and FREDERICK THOMAS, Plaintiff, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL EASLEY, State of North Carolina Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6180 CHARLES H. WRENN; KERMEDIS JACOBS; JAMES ELLIOTT PRICE, SR.; JAMES BYRD MILLER; FREDERICK W. CORBETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and FREDERICK THOMAS, Plaintiff, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL EASLEY, State of North Carolina Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-786-5-F) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles H. Wrenn, Kermedis Jacobs, James Elliott Price, Sr., James Byrd Miller, Frederick W. Corbett, Appellants Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: The Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 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. Wrenn v. Freeman, No. CA-94-786-5-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 1995). We deny the Appellants' motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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