Filed: Mar. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7669 HENRY GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE STRICKLAND; TINA KINLAW, Head Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-829-5-BR) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7669 HENRY GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE STRICKLAND; TINA KINLAW, Head Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-829-5-BR) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7669 HENRY GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE STRICKLAND; TINA KINLAW, Head Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-829-5-BR) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Henry Gilmore appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gilmore v. Strickland, No. CA-98-829-5-BR (Nov. 16, 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
