Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bridgeman v. Beardsley, 96-7363 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7363 Visitors: 34
Filed: Jan. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7363 WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; SERGEANT PRITCHERD; THOMAS SMITH; MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM CATOE; GEORGE MARTIN; SERGEANT ROACH; SERGEANT BROWN, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT LANE, Defendants, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr.,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7363 WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; SERGEANT PRITCHERD; THOMAS SMITH; MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM CATOE; GEORGE MARTIN; SERGEANT ROACH; SERGEANT BROWN, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT LANE, Defendants, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1998-2-3AJ) Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Bridgeman, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bridgeman v. Beardsley, No. CA-95-1998-2-3AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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