Filed: May 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6564 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN; SUSAN MCNEELY; MARY STEINS, Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-40-1) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINS
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6564 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN; SUSAN MCNEELY; MARY STEINS, Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-40-1) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINSO..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6564 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN; SUSAN MCNEELY; MARY STEINS, Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-40-1) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry L. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina; Roy Asberry Cooper III, Marry S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Perry L. Crawford appeals the district court’s order 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 Crawford v. Turpin, No. CA-01-40-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2004). 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 -