Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dammons v. Mays, 04-6642 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6642 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6642 MICHAEL ANTHONY DAMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. “JANE DOE” MAYS, Nurse; JOSEPH LIGHTSEY, Dr., 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-02-445-F) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6642 MICHAEL ANTHONY DAMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. “JANE DOE” MAYS, Nurse; JOSEPH LIGHTSEY, Dr., 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-02-445-F) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Dammons, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Dammons appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing Dammons’ complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dammons v. Mays, No. CA-02-445-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2004). We deny Dammons’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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