Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7125 JOHN LEE CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Warden, in his individual capacity; SAMUEL LATTA, Major, in his individ- ual capacity; SERGEANT HOUSEY, in his individ- ual capacity; RICHARD S. NAJJAR, in his indi- vidual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2026-5-2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7125 JOHN LEE CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Warden, in his individual capacity; SAMUEL LATTA, Major, in his individ- ual capacity; SERGEANT HOUSEY, in his individ- ual capacity; RICHARD S. NAJJAR, in his indi- vidual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2026-5-24..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7125 JOHN LEE CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Warden, in his individual capacity; SAMUEL LATTA, Major, in his individ- ual capacity; SERGEANT HOUSEY, in his individ- ual capacity; RICHARD S. NAJJAR, in his indi- vidual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2026-5-24AK) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Morgan Stuart Templeton, Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, LAW OFFICE OF DUFFIE STONE, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Lee Cameron appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cameron v. Taylor, No. CA-98-2026-5-24AK (D.S.C. July 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2