Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-7230 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7230 Visitors: 28
Filed: Nov. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 70 F.3d 112 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Stephen Mark HAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George MARTIN, III, Warden; Tyrone Suber; Bob Baxla, Investigator; D.L. Driskell, Corrections Officer; S. Pearson, Adjustment Committee Member; D. Wilson, Adjustment Committee Member
More

70 F.3d 112

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Stephen Mark HAUSE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
George MARTIN, III, Warden; Tyrone Suber; Bob Baxla,
Investigator; D.L. Driskell, Corrections Officer; S.
Pearson, Adjustment Committee Member; D. Wilson, Adjustment
Committee Member; R. Murray, Adjustment Committee Member;
Barbara Bowen, Legal Department, South Carolina Department
of Corrections; James L. Harvey, Regional Administrator,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, in his individual
and/or official capacity; Parker Evatt, Commissioner;
Charlie Adams, Inmate Representative, in their individual
and/or official capacities, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 15, 1995.
Submitted July 25, 1995.

Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON, SIMS, MORRISON & SOJOURNER, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) 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.* Hause v. Martin, No. CA-92-1208-3-20AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 1994). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

We also deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and oral argument

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