Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6400 ODELL J. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-168-5-BR) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6400 ODELL J. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-168-5-BR) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6400 ODELL J. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-168-5-BR) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Odell J. Harris, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. North Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-96-168-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 1996). 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
