Filed: Feb. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7741 COY RAY PHELPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER; CHARLES GRIFFIN; CHARLENE HARRIS; ROBERT LUCKING, Dr.; ARTHUR BEELER; BRUCE CAPEHART, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-04-439-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7741 COY RAY PHELPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER; CHARLES GRIFFIN; CHARLENE HARRIS; ROBERT LUCKING, Dr.; ARTHUR BEELER; BRUCE CAPEHART, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-04-439-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7741 COY RAY PHELPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER; CHARLES GRIFFIN; CHARLENE HARRIS; ROBERT LUCKING, Dr.; ARTHUR BEELER; BRUCE CAPEHART, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-04-439-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Coy Ray Phelps, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Coy Ray Phelps appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Phelps v. Weaver, No. CA-04-439-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 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 -
