Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6609 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARRY GALLOWAY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; CURRY; BUSH; CATHERINE KENDALL; JAMES PARKER; COLIE RUSHTON; MARY D. ANDERSON; SQUIRES; BARTON VINCENT; GARY D. MAYNARD; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-740-18BC
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6609 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARRY GALLOWAY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; CURRY; BUSH; CATHERINE KENDALL; JAMES PARKER; COLIE RUSHTON; MARY D. ANDERSON; SQUIRES; BARTON VINCENT; GARY D. MAYNARD; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-740-18BC)..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6609 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARRY GALLOWAY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; CURRY; BUSH; CATHERINE KENDALL; JAMES PARKER; COLIE RUSHTON; MARY D. ANDERSON; SQUIRES; BARTON VINCENT; GARY D. MAYNARD; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-740-18BC) Submitted: July 14, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Edward Hendricks appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hendricks v. Galloway, No. CA-03-740-18BC (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2004). 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 -