Shaw v. Hunt ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7567
    JOSEPH SHAW, a/k/a Jelani Husani Simba,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    CARL GENE BALLARD; NATHAN PHILLIPS, JR.,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    JAMES BAXTER HUNT, JR.; MACK JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; RUBY S.
    BRANDON; JACK V. TURLINGTON; RANNY FUTRELL; R. R. RIVENBARK;
    JAMES BYRUM; TRACY LEE UNDERWOOD; D. WALKER; SERGEANT CORBETT-
    MOORE; S. MURPHY; DAVID SOMEESE; CORR OFFICER CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER, PHIPPS; R. R. RIVENBARK; S. COLLINS; STEWART,
    Correctional Officer; JOSEPH LABELL; SERGEANT SUTTON; D. LEWIS;
    MICHAEL T. BELL,
    Defendants - Appellees
    and
    LIEUTENANT AUTRY; GEROTHA R. SPAIN; J. BAKER WILLIAMS;
    JACKIE BANNERMAN; RAY KRYNICKI; T. THELMA SMITH; AGNES J.
    ALLER, Nurse; CATHY S. DIXON; W. THOMPSON; JOANNE WISE;
    MICHAEL EDWARDS
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:98-ct-000691-F)
    Submitted:   April 17, 2008              Decided:   April 21, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.     William McBlief, Elizabeth F.
    Parsons, William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles T. Cunningham, PEEBLES &
    SCHRAMM, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Shaw appeals the district court’s order accepting
    the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying
    relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint.    We have reviewed
    the record and find no reversible error.      Accordingly, we affirm
    for the reasons stated by the district court.      Shaw v. Hunt, No.
    5:98-ct-000691-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2007).    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7567

Filed Date: 4/21/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021