The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6893•William Earl Sanders v. Randall R. Lee
00-6893Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 8, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6893
WILLIAM EARL SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RANDALL R. LEE; LYNN C. PHILLIS; JAMES B.
FRENCH; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-99-727-5-F)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Earl Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Earl Sanders, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the
district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Sanders v. Lee, No. CA-99-
727-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 18, 2000). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.