Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7242 KISH PATE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLADEN YOUTH CENTER, Medical Staff; MORRISON YOUTH INSTITUTION, Medical Staff; MCCAIN DERMATOLOGIST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-444-5-BR) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7242 KISH PATE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLADEN YOUTH CENTER, Medical Staff; MORRISON YOUTH INSTITUTION, Medical Staff; MCCAIN DERMATOLOGIST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-444-5-BR) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7242 KISH PATE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLADEN YOUTH CENTER, Medical Staff; MORRISON YOUTH INSTITUTION, Medical Staff; MCCAIN DERMATOLOGIST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-444-5-BR) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kish Pate, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kish Pate, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). 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 Pate v. Bladen Youth Ctr., No. CA-00-444- 5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2000). 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
