Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joseph v. Taylor, 97-6215 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6215 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6215 MARCUS A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. TAYLOR, Warden; W. L. EAGLETON, Associate Warden; C. FELDER; A. PINCKNEY, Supervisor ASU, in their individual, official and pro- fessional capacities; L. TURNER; E. J. OLSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-4084-2-17AJ) Submitte
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6215 MARCUS A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. TAYLOR, Warden; W. L. EAGLETON, Associate Warden; C. FELDER; A. PINCKNEY, Supervisor ASU, in their individual, official and pro- fessional capacities; L. TURNER; E. J. OLSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-4084-2-17AJ) Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: January 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Kendrick Bell, ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS, Columbia, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, James Miller Davis, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Taylor, No. CA-95-4084-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 1997). We deny Appellees' motions to dismiss and for sanc- tions. 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
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