Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7184 RANDY WILLIFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1699-17AK, CA-96-1700-17AK) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7184 RANDY WILLIFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1699-17AK, CA-96-1700-17AK) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7184 RANDY WILLIFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1699-17AK, CA-96-1700-17AK) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Williford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's order accept- ing the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williford v. Catoe, Nos. CA-96-1699-17AK; CA-96-1700-17AK (D.S.C. July 12, 1996). 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. DISMISSED 2