Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fordham v. NC Department Corr, 99-7720 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7720 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7720 CHRISTOPHER JAMES FORDHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MACK JARVIS; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN C. PHILLIPS; RANDALL LEE; RICHARD T. DUKE, JR.; RICKY ROBINSON; MR. MCWILLIAMS; SERGEANT WIGGINS; SERGEANT DELOATCH; W. SLEDGE, SR.; OFFICER DILLARD; OFFICER ROWE; OFFICER PRIMUS; OFFICER MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7720 CHRISTOPHER JAMES FORDHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MACK JARVIS; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN C. PHILLIPS; RANDALL LEE; RICHARD T. DUKE, JR.; RICKY ROBINSON; MR. MCWILLIAMS; SERGEANT WIGGINS; SERGEANT DELOATCH; W. SLEDGE, SR.; OFFICER DILLARD; OFFICER ROWE; OFFICER PRIMUS; OFFICER MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-789-5-BO) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher James Fordham, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OF- FICE 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Christopher James Fordham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com- plaint. 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 Fordham v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-98-789-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1999). Fordham’s request for injunctive relief is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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