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)
00-6912•Adam Wade Owens v. Daniel Stieneke
00-6912Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 8, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6912
ADAM WADE OWENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DANIEL STIENEKE; T. SHAW, Correctional Offi-
cer; SUPERINTENDENT MCDADE; SERGEANT WARREN;
SERGEANT HENRY WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-354-5-BR)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001
Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adam Wade Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Adam Wade Owens appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Owens v. Stieneke, No. CA-99-354-5-BR (E.D.N.C. May 25, 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.