Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Randolph Watterson v. Duane Terrell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Randolph Watterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7373

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Randolph Watterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    21 views3 pages

    Randolph Watterson v. Duane Terrell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Randolph Watterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7373

    RANDOLPH A. WATTERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    WILLIE C. GLASCOE,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DUANE TERRELL, Assistant Superintendent at Marion Corr.
    Inst.; MARCELLA FAIRCLOTH, Lieutenant at Marion Corr. Inst.;
    CAPTAIN
    COPENING,
    at
    Marion
    Corr.
    Inst.;
    VIRGINIA
    BROOKSHIRE, Mailroom Worker at Marion Corr. Inst.; NEWTON,
    Assistant Unit Manager at Marion Prison; J. WASHBURN, Sgt at
    Marion Prison,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    DERRICK E. FOX, Officer; BOONE, Officer,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cv-00184-RJC)

    Submitted:

    February 23, 2012

    Decided:

    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    February 27, 2012

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randolph A. Watterson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Lisa Yvette Harper,
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General,
    Raleigh,
    North
    Carolina,
    for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randolph

    A.

    Watterson

    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.

    Watterson v. Terrell, No. 1:10-cv-00184-RJC (W.D.N.C.

    Sept. 30, 2011).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like