McNeill v. Currie

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit November 16, 2004

McNeill v. Currie, 112 F. App'x 924 (4th Cir. 2004)

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

James C. McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court dismissed as frivolous McNeill’s claims concerning the lack of due process in disciplinary hearings and dismissed without prejudice McNeill’s claims concerning the denial of out-of-cell exercise time.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McNeill v. Currie, No. CA-04-9-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2004). 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

Because McNeill challenges only the district court’s decision concerning the denial of due process at the disciplinary hearings, our review is limited to that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Reference

Full Case Name: James C. MCNEILL v. George E. CURRIE Michael Munns Richard T. Jones Tonia Rodgers Tony C. Jones James A. Reid Shanticia Hawkins George Turner Betsy Branch Marvin Thomas Theodis Beck Boyd Bennett Virginia Lancaster J.J. Haynes Leigh Branch Bullock Hattie Pimpong Eveline Faulk Earl V. Echard Joseph Lightsey
Status: Published