Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Catoe, 00-6692 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6692 Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6692 ERNEST LEE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CATOE, Director of South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; RONALD COOK, Officer at McCormick Correctional Insti- tution; MICHAEL MATERNA, Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution; CLEON CURRY, Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution; CALVIN PERIN, Lieutenant at McCormick Correctional Insti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6692 ERNEST LEE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CATOE, Director of South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; RONALD COOK, Officer at McCormick Correctional Insti- tution; MICHAEL MATERNA, Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution; CLEON CURRY, Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution; CALVIN PERIN, Lieutenant at McCormick Correctional Institution; JAMES BALDWIN, Lieutenant at McCormick Correctional Institution; WILLIE OLIVER, Sergeant at McCormick Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-723-4-17-BF) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Lee Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, BURNS, MCDONALD, BRADFORD, PATRICK & TINSLEY, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernest Lee Jones appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Catoe, No. CA-99-723-4-17-BF (D.S.C. Jan. 21 & Apr. 26, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer