Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7700 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Utilization Review Board; CURTIS BOWE, P.A.; MARVIN L. POLK; PAULA SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-03-708-5-FL) Submitted: February 19,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7700 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Utilization Review Board; CURTIS BOWE, P.A.; MARVIN L. POLK; PAULA SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-03-708-5-FL) Submitted: February 19, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7700 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Utilization Review Board; CURTIS BOWE, P.A.; MARVIN L. POLK; PAULA SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-03-708-5-FL) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Williams appeals the district court’s order 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 Williams v. Beck, No. CA-03-708-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 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 -
