Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6498 JAMES RAY CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNC HOSPITALS; UNKNOWN DOCTOR, UNC Hospitals Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03207-FL) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 25, 2019 Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6498 JAMES RAY CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNC HOSPITALS; UNKNOWN DOCTOR, UNC Hospitals Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03207-FL) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 25, 2019 Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6498
JAMES RAY CLARK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNC HOSPITALS; UNKNOWN DOCTOR, UNC Hospitals
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03207-FL)
Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 25, 2019
Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Ray Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Clark v. UNC Hosps., No. 5:18-ct-03207-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2019).
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