Charles Edwards v. Joseph Ponte Franklin Freeman Mike Easley James Hunt Costal Medical

72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39536, 1995 WL 747262
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 1995
Docket95-7335
StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 126 (Charles Edwards v. Joseph Ponte Franklin Freeman Mike Easley James Hunt Costal Medical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles Edwards v. Joseph Ponte Franklin Freeman Mike Easley James Hunt Costal Medical, 72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39536, 1995 WL 747262 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

72 F.3d 126
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles EDWARDS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Joseph PONTE; Franklin Freeman; Mike Easley; James Hunt;
Costal Medical, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7335.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1995.
Decided Dec. 15, 1995.

Charles Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-469-5-CT-BR)

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and affirm the 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (1988) dismissal on the reasoning of the district court. Edwards v. Ponte, No. CA-95-469-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1995). However, we modify the order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2106 (1988). Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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 AS MODIFIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39536, 1995 WL 747262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-edwards-v-joseph-ponte-franklin-freeman-mi-ca4-1995.