Inko-Tariah v. Lappin

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 7, 2009·No. 07-6242·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6242

CHARLES A. INKO-TARIAH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; ART F. BEELER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MONA HORTON, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MARY ELLIS, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner,

Defendants – Appellees.

No. 09-6889

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; ART F. BEELER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MONA HORTON, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MARY ELLIS, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00585-H) Submitted: September 8, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Inko-Tariah, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Inko-Tariah appeals the dismissal of his

complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Bivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), and North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons

Protection Act, N.C.G.S. § 168A-1, et seq. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Inko-Tariah v.

Lappin, No. 5:05-ct-00585-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 6, 2006 &

entered Apr. 10, 2006; Jan. 30, 2007; Apr. 1, 2009). 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

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

Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, (4th Cir. 2009).

Inko-Tariah v. Lappin (Inko-Tariah v. Lappin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related