Filed: Feb. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7451 RICKEY J. SHEPARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR PATE; DOCTOR HARD; WILLIAM R. WARDEN; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; DOCTOR RENTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-2696-19-BD) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7451 RICKEY J. SHEPARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR PATE; DOCTOR HARD; WILLIAM R. WARDEN; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; DOCTOR RENTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-2696-19-BD) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7451 RICKEY J. SHEPARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR PATE; DOCTOR HARD; WILLIAM R. WARDEN; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; DOCTOR RENTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-2696-19-BD) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey J. Shepard, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Thomas, BARNES, ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Shepard v. Pate, No. CA-95- 2696-19-BD (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2