Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-7039•Marion Edward Pearson, Jr v. James B. Bennett
02-7039Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit17.10.2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7039
MARION EDWARD PEARSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES B. BENNETT; ERNEST SUTTON; CARL E.
BATTLE; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; LEVI BROTHERS, JR.,
Sergeant; LEWIS CARTER, II, Unit Manager;
WILLIAM BASNIGHT, III, Assistant Unit Manager;
OFFICER HARRIS; JANE DOE, Nurse Contractor;
JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, Librarian,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-02-196-5-H)
Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Pearson v. Bennett, No. CA-02-196-5-H (E.D.N.C.
June 4, 2002). 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.