Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dozier v. Champion, 08-6900 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6900 Visitors: 34
Filed: Nov. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6900 ANGELA MARIA DOZIER, Plaintiff –Appellant, v. ANNA CHAMPION; HATTIE PIMPONG; CASE MANAGER MS. JONES; ASSIGNMENT MGR. MS. SMITH; OFFICER STONE; OFFICER BASS; SGT. DAVIS; SGT. HAYES; LIEUTENANT HARRIS; CHARLES HILL; SGT. BRIGGS; DR. DEROSIERS; SGT. WHITAKER; LT. SORIE; NURSE DAVIS; DR. CURTIS; DR. DYER; TAMMY RHODES; NURSE COX; CHAPLAIN COLEY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the E
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6900 ANGELA MARIA DOZIER, Plaintiff –Appellant, v. ANNA CHAMPION; HATTIE PIMPONG; CASE MANAGER MS. JONES; ASSIGNMENT MGR. MS. SMITH; OFFICER STONE; OFFICER BASS; SGT. DAVIS; SGT. HAYES; LIEUTENANT HARRIS; CHARLES HILL; SGT. BRIGGS; DR. DEROSIERS; SGT. WHITAKER; LT. SORIE; NURSE DAVIS; DR. CURTIS; DR. DYER; TAMMY RHODES; NURSE COX; CHAPLAIN COLEY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-ct-03041-H) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angela Maria Dozier, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Maria Dozier appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 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. Dozier v. Champion, No. 5:06-ct-03041-H (E.D.N.C. May 13, 2008). 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