Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Jean-Claude Rinehart v. Theodis Beck, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Jean-Claude Rinehart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Rinehart appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error, and further denied Rinehart's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Jean-Claude Rinehart v. Theodis Beck, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    57 views2 pages
    1) Jean-Claude Rinehart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Rinehart appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error, and further denied Rinehart's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1074

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Jean-Claude Rinehart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Rinehart appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error, and further denied Rinehart's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    57 views2 pages

    Jean-Claude Rinehart v. Theodis Beck, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Jean-Claude Rinehart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Rinehart appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error, and further denied Rinehart's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1074

    JEAN-CLAUDE RINEHART,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT;
    HUNSUCKER; JOHN GODFREY; J.
    MR. WALN; MS. HARWOOD; TWO
    PAULA SMITH; ALVIN KELLER;
    BILLIE S. MARTIN,

    JAMES PIERCE; LEWIS SMITH; JAMES


    KELLY; T. HILDRETH; MR. CARLISS;
    UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM WORKERS; DR.
    DEBRA B. MORRIS; MS. BARRINGER;

    Defendants Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    District Judge. (5:09-ct-03019-D)

    Submitted:

    July 28, 2011

    Decided:

    August 1, 2011

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jean-Claude Rinehart, Appellant Pro Se.


    Oliver Gray Wheeler,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jean-Claude

    Rinehart

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Rinehart v. Beck, No. 5:09-ct-03019-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5,

    2011).

    We further deny Rineharts motion for appointment of

    counsel.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like