Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-6275 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6275 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 09, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 35 F.3d 555 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Thomas D. CROOKS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Parker EVATT, Commissioner of SCDC, in his individual capacities; Tony L. Strawhorn, Director, Division of Community Services, SCDC, in his individual capacities; J. Barry Mock, Assistant D
More

35 F.3d 555

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas D. CROOKS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner of SCDC, in his individual
capacities; Tony L. Strawhorn, Director, Division of
Community Services, SCDC, in his individual capacities; J.
Barry Mock, Assistant Director, Division of Community
Services, SCDC, in his individual capacities; David L.
Bartles, Director, Division of Inmate Operations and
Control, SCDC, in his individual capacities, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6275.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-396-3-17AJ).

Thomas D. Crooks, appellant Pro Se.

David Leon Morrison, Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson, Simms, Morrison & Sojourber, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, 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. Crooks v. Evatt, No. CA-93-396-3-17AJ (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 1994). 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.

2

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