Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Freeman v. NC Department Corr, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Daryl K. Freeman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging constitutional violations. The U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina denied relief. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-01-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7439

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Daryl K. Freeman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging constitutional violations. The U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina denied relief. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Freeman v. NC Department Corr, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Daryl K. Freeman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging constitutional violations. The U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina denied relief. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7439

    DARYL K. FREEMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
    CAPTAIN MCHEE, employed of Odom Correctional
    Institution; SERGEANT ASKEW, employed at Odom
    Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    BLYTHE, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; OFFICER WIGGINS, Correctional officer
    employed at Odom Correctional Institution;
    MOSLEY, Correctional Officer employed at Odom
    Correctional Institution; DEBERRY, Nurse,
    employed at Odom Correctional Institution;
    BERTHA THOMPSON, Nurse, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; DOCTOR ANDERSON, Medical Physician employed at Odom Correctional
    Institution,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CA-96-968-5-CT-F2)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 1998

    Decided:

    January 11, 1999

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Daryl K. Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate
    Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daryl K. Freeman appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

    the district court.

    See Freeman v. North Carolina Department of

    Corrections, No. CA-96-968-5-CT-F2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 1998).

    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

    You might also like