Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McNeill v. Vanburen, 04-7253 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7253 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7253 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHARON SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN, Defendants - Appellees, and DENNIS VANBUREN, 2nd Shift Lieutenant; BENJAMIN LEA, 2nd Shift Sergeant; MARY WATSON, RN; MS. ROYSTER, 2nd Shift C/O; HOWARD CRABTREE, 2nd Shift C/O; ASHANTI WILLIAMS, 2nd Shift C/O; JAMES WILLIAMS, 2nd Shift C/O; NORWOOD, 2nd Shift C/O; LINDA MORGAN, 3rd Shift C/O, Defendants. Appeal from the United State
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7253 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHARON SNYDER, LPN; ELEXIA CRAIG, LPN, Defendants - Appellees, and DENNIS VANBUREN, 2nd Shift Lieutenant; BENJAMIN LEA, 2nd Shift Sergeant; MARY WATSON, RN; MS. ROYSTER, 2nd Shift C/O; HOWARD CRABTREE, 2nd Shift C/O; ASHANTI WILLIAMS, 2nd Shift C/O; JAMES WILLIAMS, 2nd Shift C/O; NORWOOD, 2nd Shift C/O; LINDA MORGAN, 3rd Shift C/O, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-120-5-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James C. McNeill 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 McNeill v. Vanburen, No. CA-03-120-5-BO (E.D.N.C. July 13, 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 -
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