Filed: Feb. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7276 DWIGHT L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES VAUGHN, Superintendent, Caledonia Correctional; DR. LAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03269-BO) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7276 DWIGHT L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES VAUGHN, Superintendent, Caledonia Correctional; DR. LAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03269-BO) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7276 DWIGHT L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES VAUGHN, Superintendent, Caledonia Correctional; DR. LAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03269-BO) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight L. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight L. Robinson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil rights complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v. Vaughn, No. 5:15-ct-03269-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2016). 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
