Filed: Jan. 03, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6938 JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. CURZAN, Doctor at Central Prison; M. SUMA, Doctor at Central Prison; DOCTOR SAMIDI; DOCTOR UMESI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00539-FL) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6938 JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. CURZAN, Doctor at Central Prison; M. SUMA, Doctor at Central Prison; DOCTOR SAMIDI; DOCTOR UMESI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00539-FL) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided:..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6938 JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. CURZAN, Doctor at Central Prison; M. SUMA, Doctor at Central Prison; DOCTOR SAMIDI; DOCTOR UMESI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00539-FL) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of 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. Williams v. Umesi, No. 5:05-ct-00539-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2006). 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 -
