McCarroll v. Beck

Fourth Circuit

McCarroll v. Beck

96 F. App'x 901

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 18, 2004·No. No. 04-6061·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lonnie McCarroll and Samuel C. Ross appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. See McCarroll v. Beck, No. CA-03-863-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2003). The court has also received twelve motions seeking to add a total of fifteen individuals who were not parties to this case in the district court as parties to this appeal. We deny these motions. 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

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lonnie McCarroll and Samuel C. Ross appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. See McCarroll v. Beck, No. CA-03-863-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2003). The court has also received twelve motions seeking to add a total of fifteen individuals who were not parties to this case in the district court as parties to this appeal. We deny these motions. 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

McCarroll v. Beck, 96 F. App'x 901 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

96 F. App'x 901 (McCarroll v. Beck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related