Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Montgomery v. Berry, 05-7641 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7641 Visitors: 54
Filed: Jan. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7641 SHERMAN CLAYTON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENEVA BERRY; KATHERINE FLANAGAN; GLENN EARL WILLIAMS; CHANSON ALBERT DEVAUL; RENOICE STANCIL; HAQUE ETHESHAMUL; NURSE VANKERN; R. DAVIDSON, Nurse Practitioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-210) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Dec
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7641 SHERMAN CLAYTON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENEVA BERRY; KATHERINE FLANAGAN; GLENN EARL WILLIAMS; CHANSON ALBERT DEVAUL; RENOICE STANCIL; HAQUE ETHESHAMUL; NURSE VANKERN; R. DAVIDSON, Nurse Practitioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-210) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherman Clayton Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Edward Elder, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth P. McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Walter Gregory Merritt, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina; Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Sherman Clayton Montgomery 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 Montgomery v. Berry, No. CA-04-210 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2005). 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