Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lineberger v. York, 03-6771 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6771 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6771 JEFFREY BERNARD LINEBERGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL YORK, Administrator I; JOHN J. HAMLIN, Programs Administrator II; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of D.O.C.; JUANITA H. BAKER, Chairperson of the North Carolina Parole; KAREM R. PARDUE, Senior Parole Case Analyst; MARY HARROP, Parole Case Analyst; JUDY H. SILLS, Manager of the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Unit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6771 JEFFREY BERNARD LINEBERGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL YORK, Administrator I; JOHN J. HAMLIN, Programs Administrator II; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of D.O.C.; JUANITA H. BAKER, Chairperson of the North Carolina Parole; KAREM R. PARDUE, Senior Parole Case Analyst; MARY HARROP, Parole Case Analyst; JUDY H. SILLS, Manager of the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-210-1) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Bernard Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Bernard Lineberger appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lineberger v. York, No. CA-02-210-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2003). 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