Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7399 JOE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; BARBARA SKEEN, Director of Health Services; ROBERT WARD, Warden of Evans Correctional Institu- tion; PRAVIN R. PATEL, Doctor at Evans Correc- tional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2085-6-20AK) Sub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7399 JOE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; BARBARA SKEEN, Director of Health Services; ROBERT WARD, Warden of Evans Correctional Institu- tion; PRAVIN R. PATEL, Doctor at Evans Correc- tional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2085-6-20AK) Subm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7399 JOE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; BARBARA SKEEN, Director of Health Services; ROBERT WARD, Warden of Evans Correctional Institu- tion; PRAVIN R. PATEL, Doctor at Evans Correc- tional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2085-6-20AK) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joe Rogers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rogers v. Catoe, No. CA-99-2085-6-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 24, 1999). 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
