Filed: Aug. 30, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6528 JERVON R. CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA NEASMAN, Captain, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:04-cv-02459-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervon R. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. E
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6528 JERVON R. CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA NEASMAN, Captain, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:04-cv-02459-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervon R. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Ed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6528 JERVON R. CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA NEASMAN, Captain, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:04-cv-02459-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervon R. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jervon R. Clark 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Neasman, No. 3:04-cv-02459-RBH (D.S.C. filed March 9, 2006; entered March 10, 2006). 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 -
