Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hope v. EMSA Correctional, 02-6674 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6674 Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6674 ERIC BERNARD HOPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE; JIM PENDERGRAPH, individually and as Sheriff of the Mecklenburg County Jail; JANE DOE, individually and as the Head Nurse of the Mecklenburg County Jail (Spector North); JOHN DOE, individually and as the Medical Doctor for the Mecklenburg County Jail; SERGEANT EASON, individually and as Sergeant of the Mecklenburg County Jail; MECKLENBURG COUNTY J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6674 ERIC BERNARD HOPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE; JIM PENDERGRAPH, individually and as Sheriff of the Mecklenburg County Jail; JANE DOE, individually and as the Head Nurse of the Mecklenburg County Jail (Spector North); JOHN DOE, individually and as the Medical Doctor for the Mecklenburg County Jail; SERGEANT EASON, individually and as Sergeant of the Mecklenburg County Jail; MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAILS; SERGEANT MACK, individually and as Sergeant of the Mecklenburg County Jail; DEPUTY OFFICER PUGH, individually and as Deputy Officer of the Mecklenburg County Jail, 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-01-334-3-2-MU) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Bernard Hope, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Bernard Hope appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 Hope v. EMSA Correctional Care, No. CA-01-334-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed July 10 & July 11, 2001; entered July 12, 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