Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moore v. Jones, 96-6660 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6660 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6660 RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD JONES, Superintendent, Piedmont Cor- rectional Institution; SHIELA THOMPSON, Pro- grammer, Piedmont Correctional Institution; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6660 RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD JONES, Superintendent, Piedmont Cor- rectional Institution; SHIELA THOMPSON, Pro- grammer, Piedmont Correctional Institution; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-728-4) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Moore, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Jones, No. CA-95-728-4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 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
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