Filed: Jul. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6143 JIMMY DEAN RIOS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF; ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H. CONNELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO) Submitted: June 27, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6143 JIMMY DEAN RIOS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF; ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H. CONNELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO) Submitted: June 27, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6143
JIMMY DEAN RIOS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PASQUOTANK MEDICAL STAFF; ELIZABETH ALBISTON; JOHN H.
CONNELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03112-BO)
Submitted: June 27, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Dean Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Dean Rios appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying various preliminary motions.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Rios v. Pasquotank Med. Staff, No. 5:11-ct-03112-BO
(E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2012; Dec. 30, 2013; Jan. 17, 2014). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2