Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chappell v. Correctional Corp of America, 03-7897 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7897 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7897 IRVING D. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE, I, last name Meadow-Sergeant; JOHN DOE, II, last name Wilder; HOPE BRYANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-148-5-F) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7897 IRVING D. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE, I, last name Meadow-Sergeant; JOHN DOE, II, last name Wilder; HOPE BRYANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-148-5-F) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irving D. Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Patricia Carole Perkins, SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Irving D. Chappell 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Chappell v. Correctional Corp. of Am., No. CA-02-148-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 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