Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6613 DOUGLAS WAYNE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS BABBS; DOCTOR SWANTON; MR. HINDS; NURSE RAMSEY, 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-98-850-CT-5-H) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6613 DOUGLAS WAYNE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS BABBS; DOCTOR SWANTON; MR. HINDS; NURSE RAMSEY, 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-98-850-CT-5-H) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6613 DOUGLAS WAYNE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS BABBS; DOCTOR SWANTON; MR. HINDS; NURSE RAMSEY, 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-98-850-CT-5-H) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Wayne Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Douglas Wayne Williams appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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. See Williams v. Babbs, No. CA-98-850-CT-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
