Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Plunkett v. United States, 01-6686 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6686 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6686 NOEL EDWARD PLUNKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; C. F. FLOYD, Warden; M. D. BELL, Associate Warden; L. E. RAINWATER, Associate Warden; ROLAND E. WILLIAMS, former Health Services Administrator; A. BALINAO, Health Service Administrator; BERNARDO PARINA, Chief Medical Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6686 NOEL EDWARD PLUNKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; C. F. FLOYD, Warden; M. D. BELL, Associate Warden; L. E. RAINWATER, Associate Warden; ROLAND E. WILLIAMS, former Health Services Administrator; A. BALINAO, Health Service Administrator; BERNARDO PARINA, Chief Medical Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-24) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Noel Edward Plunkett, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Noel Edward Plunkett appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 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. Plunkett v. United States, No. CA-00-24 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2001). 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
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