Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

93-7232 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-7232 Visitors: 64
Filed: Feb. 25, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 1429 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Donald Clark HOLCOMBE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Terry HEATHERLY; Lieutenant Ricks; Sergeant Johns; Deputy Warden Counts; Lieutenant Pea; Lieutenant Wilson; Correctional Officer P. Jones; Danny Hyatt, Correctional Officer; Correctio
More

19 F.3d 1429

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Donald Clark HOLCOMBE, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Terry HEATHERLY; Lieutenant Ricks; Sergeant Johns; Deputy
Warden Counts; Lieutenant Pea; Lieutenant Wilson;
Correctional Officer P. Jones; Danny Hyatt, Correctional
Officer; Correctional Officer Mobley; April Glenn; Sandra
Jenkins; Warden Wannamaker, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-7232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided: Feb. 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-90-1984-7-2BC)

Donald Clark Holcombe, Appellant Pro Se.

Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, Barbara Murcier Bowens, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holcombe v. Heatherly, No. CA-90-1984-7-2BC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1993). 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

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