Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Seagle v. Baloch, 96-6588 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6588 Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6588 RALPH SEAGLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. H. BALOCH, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and CARVILLE TOLSON, M.D.; J. C. PINION; ANN VANDERBURG, R.N., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-201-5-BO) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6588 RALPH SEAGLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. H. BALOCH, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and CARVILLE TOLSON, M.D.; J. C. PINION; ANN VANDERBURG, R.N., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-201-5-BO) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. * Judge Ervin did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1988). Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Seagle, Appellant Pro Se. David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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. Seagle v. Baloch, No. CA-95-201-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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
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