Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7085 REGINALD SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLA O’KONEK, Superintendent; MR. ARCHY, Food Service Supervisor; MR. ANDERSON; DOCTOR DUVAUL; NURSE MASSENGILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-259) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7085 REGINALD SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLA O’KONEK, Superintendent; MR. ARCHY, Food Service Supervisor; MR. ANDERSON; DOCTOR DUVAUL; NURSE MASSENGILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-259) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LU..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7085 REGINALD SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLA O’KONEK, Superintendent; MR. ARCHY, Food Service Supervisor; MR. ANDERSON; DOCTOR DUVAUL; NURSE MASSENGILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-259) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Reginald Sutton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915e (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is friv- olous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sutton v. O’Konek, No. CA-99-259 (E.D.N.C. June 29, 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. DISMISSED 2
