Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. Moore, 97-6772 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6772 Visitors: 36
Filed: Oct. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6772 BOBBY SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL R. NICKER- SON, Correctional Officer; LINDA YARBOROUGH, Correctional Officer, Property Control; ISAAC BOOKER, Grievance Clerk; THOMAS W. BAKER, Administrative Assistant for D.C.I., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6772 BOBBY SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL R. NICKER- SON, Correctional Officer; LINDA YARBOROUGH, Correctional Officer, Property Control; ISAAC BOOKER, Grievance Clerk; THOMAS W. BAKER, Administrative Assistant for D.C.I., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3011-3-20BC) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Smith v. Moore, No. CA-96- 3011-3-20BC (D.S.C. May 9, 1997). 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