Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCombs v. Catoe, 00-7167 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7167 Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7167 JOHN LEROY MCCOMBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Commissioner of SCDC; DIANE AUSTIN, Librarian at Tyger River Correctional Institution; RICHARD NOLLS, Lieutenant, SMU Supervisor; ROBIN K. BAILEY, Sergeant, Shift Supervisor; G. GUINN, Mailroom Worker; MARION JAMES, Librarian at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7167 JOHN LEROY MCCOMBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Commissioner of SCDC; DIANE AUSTIN, Librarian at Tyger River Correctional Institution; RICHARD NOLLS, Lieutenant, SMU Supervisor; ROBIN K. BAILEY, Sergeant, Shift Supervisor; G. GUINN, Mailroom Worker; MARION JAMES, Librarian at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-4055-6-10AK) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Leroy McCombs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Leroy McCombs appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCombs v. Catoe, No. CA-99-4055-6-10AK (D.S.C. filed July 20, 2000; entered July 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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