Filed: Jun. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6593 ROOSEVELT EISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Director; CARLA J. SMALLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-585-9-24RB) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6593 ROOSEVELT EISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Director; CARLA J. SMALLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-585-9-24RB) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6593 ROOSEVELT EISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Director; CARLA J. SMALLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-585-9-24RB) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Eison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Teresa A. Knox, Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Eison, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny- ing 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 revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Eison v. Doe, No. CA-99-585-9-24RB (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2000). 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