Sines v. Urhen

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 2005
Docket05-6198
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sines v. Urhen (Sines v. Urhen) 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
Sines v. Urhen, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6198

ROBERT T. SINES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT URHEN; DOCTOR JAGUST; MEDICAL AND NURSING STAFF AT AVERY MITCHELL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-221)

Submitted: May 31, 2005 Decided: June 20, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert T. Sines, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Robert T. Sines appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sines’ motion for

appointment of counsel and motions to add a party, and we affirm on

the grounds that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. See Sines v. Urhen, No. CA-04-221 (W.D.N.C. Dec.

17, 2004). 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

- 2 -

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

Related

§ 1915A
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sines v. Urhen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sines-v-urhen-ca4-2005.