Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Williams v. Marshal Griffin, 12-6384 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-6384 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6384 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARSHAL GRIFFIN; OFFICER FOX; OFFICER GRAY; OFFICER ALPERSTEIN; OFFICER ANDERSON; OFFICER CLARK; JOSEPH M. LIGHTSEY; MADONNA GODWIN, Nurse; STEVE DOLINSKI, Head Director of Nursing, Defendants – Appellees, JOSEPH M. LIGHTSEY; MADONNA GODWIN, Nurse; STEVE DOLINSKI, Head Director of Nursing, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6384 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARSHAL GRIFFIN; OFFICER FOX; OFFICER GRAY; OFFICER ALPERSTEIN; OFFICER ANDERSON; OFFICER CLARK; JOSEPH M. LIGHTSEY; MADONNA GODWIN, Nurse; STEVE DOLINSKI, Head Director of Nursing, Defendants – Appellees, JOSEPH M. LIGHTSEY; MADONNA GODWIN, Nurse; STEVE DOLINSKI, Head Director of Nursing, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-ct-03122-FL) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Antwon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Kelly Elizabeth Street, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.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. Williams v. Griffin, No. 5:10-ct-03122-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2012). 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