Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gilley v. Hunt, 99-6339 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6339
Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6339 RAYMOND FREDERICK GILLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; MACK JARVIS; CHARLES G. STEVENS; JAMES PIERCE; JOSEPH LOFTIS; CLYDE MORRIS; C. LOWNES, Doctor; DONNIE CHANDLER; CHERYL SMITH; D. DANIELS; R. PRICE; D. DAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1274-1) Submitted: July 8
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6339 RAYMOND FREDERICK GILLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; MACK JARVIS; CHARLES G. STEVENS; JAMES PIERCE; JOSEPH LOFTIS; CLYDE MORRIS; C. LOWNES, Doctor; DONNIE CHANDLER; CHERYL SMITH; D. DANIELS; R. PRICE; D. DAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1274-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Frederick Gilley, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Herre Erwin, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Frederick Gilley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gilley v. Hunt, No. CA-97-1274-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 1999). 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