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)
11-7700•Tony L. Harris v. ARAMARK, Food Service Provider
11-7700Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 3, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7700
TONY L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARAMARK, Food Service Provider; B. J. BARNES, Sheriff;
OFFICER RAMSEY, Kitchen Supervisor; LIEUTENANT WATKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-7701
TONY L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. J. BARNES, Sheriff; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; CAPTAIN REID;
KENNETH WATKINS, Lieutenant; SAMI HASSAN, Dr.; RICHARD
CORNWALL, P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00072-CCE-PTS; 1:10-cv-00228-CCE-PTS)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Arthur Berkelhammer,
Thadeus Matthew Creech, SMITH MOORE, LLP, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Stephen D. Martin, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH,
LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Matthew Livingston Mason, GUILFORD
COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Steven
Price Weaver, BROTHERTON, FORD, YEOMAN & BERRY, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Tony L. Harris appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints and imposing a
prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Harris v. Aramark, No. 1:10-cv-00072-
CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2011); Harris v. Barnes, No. 1:10-cv-
00228-CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2011). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.