Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7266 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-7388 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-504-BR) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7266 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-7388 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-504-BR) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7266 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-7388 HENRY WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. ALLEN, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-504-BR) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 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. Watson v. Allen, No. CA-96-504-BR (E.D.N.C. July 30, 1996). We modify the district court's order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). We dis- pense 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 AS MODIFIED 2