Harris v. Aramark

Full title: TONY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARAMARK, Food Service Provider…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 3, 2012

470 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-7700 No. 11-7701

04-03-2012

TONY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARAMARK, Food Service Provider; B. J. BARNES, Sheriff; OFFICER RAMSEY, Kitchen Supervisor; LIEUTENANT WATKINS, Defendants - Appellees. 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.

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.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

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)

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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