Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7637 TOMMY CARVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD; DOCTOR CAMPBELL; ROBERT UHREN, M.D.; DAVID R. MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00283-GCM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7637 TOMMY CARVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD; DOCTOR CAMPBELL; ROBERT UHREN, M.D.; DAVID R. MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00283-GCM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7637 TOMMY CARVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD; DOCTOR CAMPBELL; ROBERT UHREN, M.D.; DAVID R. MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00283-GCM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Carver, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tommy Carver appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carver v. Bennett, No. 1:09-cv-00283-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2009). 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
