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)
06-6318•Jimmy L. Shue v. William McCollum
06-6318Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 5, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6318
JIMMY L. SHUE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
HERRING,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:04-CV-01012-WWD)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy L. Shue, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --
*The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy L. Shue appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. * We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shue v.
Herring, No. 1:04-CV-01012-WWD (M.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2006). 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.