Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Logan v. Catoe, 01-6453 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6453 Visitors: 34
Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6453 ROBERT STEVEN LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CATOE, Director of SCDC; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director; WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN SANDERS; THIERRY NETTLES, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institution; SUSAN RICHIE, Classification, Lieber Correctional Institu- tion; ANTHONY HILL, Officer, Lieber Correc- tional Institution; MOSCOE RHODES, Inmate of McCormick Correcti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6453 ROBERT STEVEN LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CATOE, Director of SCDC; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director; WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; CAPTAIN SANDERS; THIERRY NETTLES, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institution; SUSAN RICHIE, Classification, Lieber Correctional Institu- tion; ANTHONY HILL, Officer, Lieber Correc- tional Institution; MOSCOE RHODES, Inmate of McCormick Correctional Institution; ASST WAR- DEN BODISON, Lieber Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-199-3-20BC) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Steven Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Steven Logan 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 accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Logan v. Catoe, No. CA-00-199-3-20BC (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2001). We deny Logan’s request for a preliminary injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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