Shaw v. Hunt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2008
• Docket: 07-7567
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -