Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ford v. Gaston, 96-7596 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7596 Visitors: 54
Filed: Feb. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7596 JULIAN FORD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN GASTON, Deputy Warden; RONALD ELLIOTT, Doctor; WILLIE BING, Correctional Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in individual and official capacity; CLAYTON CLARK, in individual and official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7596 JULIAN FORD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN GASTON, Deputy Warden; RONALD ELLIOTT, Doctor; WILLIE BING, Correctional Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in individual and official capacity; CLAYTON CLARK, in individual and official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-1299-3-18BC) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexandria Skinner, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Ford v. Gaston, No. CA-95- 1299-3-18BC (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 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
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