McLean v. Stieneke, No. 05-7784 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7784 MICHAEL MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL L. STIENEKE; JAMES FRENCH; RANDALL LEE; JAMES SMITH, Doctor; OFFICER PHILMON; OFFICER PITTMAN; OFFICER PULLEN; OFFICER ROOKS; OFFICER BRODY; OFFICER DANIELS; OFFICER PEARS; OFFICER PETERSON; OFFICER INGRAM; OFFICER PULLEN; OFFICER HARRIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-05-222-5-H) Submitted: May 3, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael McLean appeals the district court s orders denying his motions to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. stated by the district Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons court. See McLean v. Stieneke, No. CA-05-222-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2005; filed Oct. 7, 2005 & entered Oct. 24, 2005). 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.