Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ledbetter v. Beck, 07-7643 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7643 Visitors: 45
Filed: Apr. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7643 BOBBY E. LEDBETTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary North Carolina Department of Corrections; TERRY HARVEL, Superintendent; PAMALA LOVE, Doctor; SAMI HASSAN, Doctor; BRENDA YUERLTON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00239-NCT) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decid
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7643 BOBBY E. LEDBETTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary North Carolina Department of Corrections; TERRY HARVEL, Superintendent; PAMALA LOVE, Doctor; SAMI HASSAN, Doctor; BRENDA YUERLTON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00239-NCT) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby E. Ledbetter, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth P. McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Steven Price Weaver, BROTHERTON, FORD, YEOMAN & BERRY, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby E. Ledbetter appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Ledbetter v. Beck, No. 1:06-cv-00239-NCT (M.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2007). 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 -
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