Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Belcher v. White, 01-7106 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7106 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7106 TIMOTHY STEPHEN BELCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIMOTHY E. WHITE, Deputy Sheriff; ELAINE GRAVITT, Medical Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-506-MU) Submitted: December 18, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Sen
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7106 TIMOTHY STEPHEN BELCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIMOTHY E. WHITE, Deputy Sheriff; ELAINE GRAVITT, Medical Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-506-MU) Submitted: December 18, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Stephen Belcher, Appellant Pro Se. Grady Michael Barnhill, Patrick T. Gillen, Scott D. Maclatchie, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Betsy J. Jones, Charlotte, North Carolina; Tricia Morvan Derr, GOLDING, HOLDEN, POPE & BAKER, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Stephen Belcher appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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 Belcher v. White, No. CA-98-506-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 7, 2001; entered June 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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