Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Beckman v. SCDC, 98-7446 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7446 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7446 HENRY ALLEN BECKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCDC; MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM CATOE; JAMES HARVEY; GEORGE T. HAGAN; ANTHONY PADULA; WILLIAM HAYES; CHRISTOPHER ALAN DAVIS; SHIRLEY BROWN; HENRY A. LANGSTON; DONALD SAMPSON; MARCIE MYERS; ROBIN PACHAK; JUDITH SAWYER; FLORENCE CHRETIAN; J. ALEXANDER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charle
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7446 HENRY ALLEN BECKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCDC; MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM CATOE; JAMES HARVEY; GEORGE T. HAGAN; ANTHONY PADULA; WILLIAM HAYES; CHRISTOPHER ALAN DAVIS; SHIRLEY BROWN; HENRY A. LANGSTON; DONALD SAMPSON; MARCIE MYERS; ROBIN PACHAK; JUDITH SAWYER; FLORENCE CHRETIAN; J. ALEXANDER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-2798-2-23AJ) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Allen Beckman, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Allen Beckman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. See Beckman v. SCDC, No. CA-97-2798-2-23AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 1998). 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. 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