Filed: Mar. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7964 TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. HUBERS, Sergeant, Central Prison; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer, Central Prison; DONNIE R. RAYNOR, Lieutenant, Central Prison; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7964 TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. HUBERS, Sergeant, Central Prison; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer, Central Prison; DONNIE R. RAYNOR, Lieutenant, Central Prison; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7964 TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. HUBERS, Sergeant, Central Prison; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer, Central Prison; DONNIE R. RAYNOR, Lieutenant, Central Prison; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-599-5-BO) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrance Lamount James 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 James v. Hubers, No. CA-04-599-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 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 -
