Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Adams v. Harrison, 98-7793 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7793 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jun. 07, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7793 GEORGE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKY HARRISON, Warden; KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; FREDERICK THOMPSON; STAN BURTT; DERWIN NEASMAN; BETTY BOWERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-810-5-6JI) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7793 GEORGE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKY HARRISON, Warden; KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; FREDERICK THOMPSON; STAN BURTT; DERWIN NEASMAN; BETTY BOWERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-810-5-6JI) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin A. Hagood, Jr., DAVIS, CRAVER, HAGOOD & KERR, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Adams, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v. Harrison, No. CA-98-810-5-6JI (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 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. 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