Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01119/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1119

SHERIF A. PHILIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE; NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM; NORTH 

CAROLINA AGENCY; VIDANT MEDICAL CENTER, f/k/a Pitt County 

Memorial Hospital; M.D. PAUL BOLIN; RALPH WHATLEY; DAVID 

CREECH, Pitt County Memorial Hospital lawyer; JAY SALSMAN, 

Pitt County Memorial Hospital lawyer; DEBBIE MEYER, Law 

Firm, Cary, NC; KAREN ZANER, Law Firm, Dallas, TX; JAMES 

CROUSE, Law Firm, Raleigh, NC; NARDINE GUIRGUIS, Law Firm, 

Raleigh, NC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00095-F)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherif Philips, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Walter 

Gregory Merritt, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, 

North Carolina; Joseph Lawrence Nelson, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & 

Appeal: 16-1119 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

CHILCOTE, Charlotte, North Carolina; John Thomas Crook, David 

Stebbins Coats, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North Carolina; Felix 

Hill Allen, IV, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1119 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Sherif Philips appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Philips v. N.C. State, No 

5:15-cv-0095-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2015). We deny Philips’

motions to appoint counsel and for consideration of recusal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-1119 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3