Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mull v. Kimber, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Johnny Mull v. various prison officials. The district court had denied relief on Mull's Section 1983 civil rights complaint. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling but modified it to make the dismissal without prejudice, allowing Mull to potentially refile his complaint. The appellate court also denied Mull's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-04-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7538

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Johnny Mull v. various prison officials. The district court had denied relief on Mull's Section 1983 civil rights complaint. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling but modified it to make the dismissal without prejudice, allowing Mull to potentially refile his complaint. The appellate court also denied Mull's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Mull v. Kimber, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Johnny Mull v. various prison officials. The district court had denied relief on Mull's Section 1983 civil rights complaint. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling but modified it to make the dismissal without prejudice, allowing Mull to potentially refile his complaint. The appellate court also denied Mull's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-7538

    JOHNNY MULL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SERGEANT KIMBER; DR. HARRIS; SERGEANT PRADO;
    SERGEANT CONNER; UNIT MANAGER PRATT; JANE DOE;
    DOCTOR LEANY; SERGEANT BURROUGH; A. V. BARNES;
    D. BEASLEY; LIEUTENANT SINGLE; WARDEN MCCABE;
    NURSE DANIEL; DOCTOR DAUGHT; JANE DOE, a/k/a
    Nurse Tina or Nurse Teresa; NURSE MARGRETT;
    DARREN JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT HUNTER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    SMITH; SERGEANT MOORE; SERGEANT SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WARREN; SERGEANT WARREN; HATTIE
    B. PIMPONG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GILMAR; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ELLIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    RANDALL; DOCTOR DOE; JOHN MILLS; WARDEN
    FRENCH; R. C. LEE; NURSE MILLER; CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER PETTERSON; SERGEANT HARRIS; OFFICER
    ONEAL; OFFICER DUDLEY; OFFICER BARBOUR; OFFICER ROBISCH; OFFICER UNDERWOOD; OFFICER
    FLEMING; OFFICER MACK; OFFICER LANIER; OFFICER
    JONES; OFFICER WALSER; OFFICER SCOTT; OFFICER
    DAVIS; OFFICER BLAZE; NURSE SPEAR; NURSE
    JOHNNIEE; NURSE TATE; LIEUTENANT THOMAS; GARY
    W. WILLS, II,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-99-657-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    February 22, 2000

    Decided:

    April 3, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Johnny Mull, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny Mull appeals the district courts order denying relief
    on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

    We have re-

    viewed the record and the district courts opinion.

    See Mull v.

    Kimber, No. CA-99-657-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 1999).

    We affirm the

    order on the reasoning of the district court but modify it to provide that the dismissal of Mulls complaint is without prejudice.
    We deny Mulls motion for appointment of counsel. 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 AS MODIFIED

    You might also like