Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Stewart, 04-7882 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7882 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 10, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7882 LEE ROBERT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR STEWART, at Columbus Correctional Institution; NURSE, at Columbus Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT COLMAN, at Columbus Correctional Institution; MS. HUNT, Superintendent at Columbus Correctional Institution; DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA INMATE MEDICAL RECORDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Nort
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7882 LEE ROBERT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR STEWART, at Columbus Correctional Institution; NURSE, at Columbus Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT COLMAN, at Columbus Correctional Institution; MS. HUNT, Superintendent at Columbus Correctional Institution; DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA INMATE MEDICAL RECORDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-567-5-BO) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 10, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lee Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. The district court’s opinion concludes that Williams “has simply constructed a complaint and memorandum which includes page after page of legal terminology without any support of alleged facts, dates, and/or injury.” We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the factual allegations contained in paragraph (E) of the memorandum/affidavit supporting Williams’s complaint meet the minimum factual requirement of a § 1983 claim. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.* 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. VACATED AND REMANDED * By this disposition, we indicate no view of the merits of Williams’s complaint or the nature of the proceedings that may be appropriate on remand. - 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