Akbar v. Director NC Prisons, (4th Cir. 2002)

Federal Circuits

Linked as:

Text


UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6726 KARIM ABDUL AKBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA PRISONS, and

Institution Employees at those prisons;

CHARLES HILL, Superintendent at Odom Prison, Defendants - Appellees, and

GARY T. DIXON, Manager, Institution Command;

GENE BARBER, Correctional Officer; NURSE

DAVIS, Nurse at Central Prison; NURSE JOYNER,

Nurse at Odom Prison; NURSE PERKINSON, Nurse

at Odom Prison; NURSE THOMPSON, Head Nurse at

Odom Prison, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-361-5-F)

Submitted: October 18, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

* We decline to address AkbarÂ’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-274,

Stat. 803, because this claim was not properly presented to the

district court and Akbar has not averred, much less demonstrated,

that plain error or a miscarriage of justice will result from the

failure to review it. See

Muth v. United States

, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Karim Abdul Akbar appeals the district court§ 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district courtÂ’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Akbar v. Director of North Carolina Prisons , No. CA-98-361-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 27, 2002; entered Mar. 28, 2). 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

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company