Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Bryant, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, 95-6007 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6007 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 820 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James BRYANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT of CORRECTIONS; Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-6007. United States Court of Appeals, Four
More

60 F.3d 820
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James BRYANT, Jr., Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT of CORRECTIONS; Parker Evatt,
Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6007.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 1995.
Decided July 6, 1995.

James Bryant, Jr., appellant pro se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

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. Bryant v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-94-1067 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 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.

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