Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCarroll v. Beck, 04-6061 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6061 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6061 EDWARD LONNIE MCCARROLL; SAMUEL C. ROSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and MICHAEL LUCAS, Plaintiff, versus THEODIS BECK; JUANITA BAKER; OFFENDER POPULATION UNIFIED SYSTEMS, 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-03-863-5-BO) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6061 EDWARD LONNIE MCCARROLL; SAMUEL C. ROSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and MICHAEL LUCAS, Plaintiff, versus THEODIS BECK; JUANITA BAKER; OFFENDER POPULATION UNIFIED SYSTEMS, 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-03-863-5-BO) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lonnie McCarroll, Samuel C. Ross, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Edward Lonnie McCarroll and Samuel C. Ross appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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 McCarroll v. Beck, No. CA-03-863-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2003). The court has also received twelve motions seeking to add a total of fifteen individuals who were not parties to this case in the district court as parties to this appeal. We deny these motions. 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 - 3 -
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