Filed: Feb. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7345 TRYPHON PEACOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES THOMPSON, Doctor; TOM BUSH, Doctor; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, In charge of Central Prison Medical Department; UNKNOWN SURGEON, at University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-567-5
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7345 TRYPHON PEACOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES THOMPSON, Doctor; TOM BUSH, Doctor; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, In charge of Central Prison Medical Department; UNKNOWN SURGEON, at University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-567-5-..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7345
TRYPHON PEACOCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES THOMPSON, Doctor; TOM BUSH, Doctor;
UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, In charge of Central Prison
Medical Department; UNKNOWN SURGEON, at
University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-567-5-BO)
Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tryphon Peacock, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tryphon Peacock 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 under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Peacock v. Thompson, No. CA-03-567-5-BO
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2003). We deny Peacock’s motion for an
injunction against administration of medication as it is not
related to the present appeal. 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 -