Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Parsons v. Lee, 04-6845 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6845 Visitors: 36
Filed: Oct. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6845 RICKY HOBART PARSONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. LEE; MARSHALL A. HUDSON; TIM SMITH; TIM GOLDSTEIN; DWIGHT HYDE; BILL CLEMENTS; W. A. BARNES; JANE DOE, Mail Room Officer at Central Prison; MARVIN POLK, Warden; MATTIE CANADY; STEVE HARPER; FOFANA SOLAIMAN; KENNETH M. JONES; JONNITA BAKER-WILLIAMS; KEN BUTLER; KRISTEN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; JOHN DOE, Psychiatrist at Central Prison; JOHN DOE, Psychologist at C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6845 RICKY HOBART PARSONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. LEE; MARSHALL A. HUDSON; TIM SMITH; TIM GOLDSTEIN; DWIGHT HYDE; BILL CLEMENTS; W. A. BARNES; JANE DOE, Mail Room Officer at Central Prison; MARVIN POLK, Warden; MATTIE CANADY; STEVE HARPER; FOFANA SOLAIMAN; KENNETH M. JONES; JONNITA BAKER-WILLIAMS; KEN BUTLER; KRISTEN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; JOHN DOE, Psychiatrist at Central Prison; JOHN DOE, Psychologist at Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-73-FL) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Hobart Parsons, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Hobart Parsons 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 Parsons v. Lee, No. CA-04-73-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 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 - 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