Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gaster v. Beasley, 95-7233 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7233 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7233 FRANK M. GASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID M. BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina; JAMES L. HARVEY, Regional Administrator of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-339-2-20AJ) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7233 FRANK M. GASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID M. BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina; JAMES L. HARVEY, Regional Administrator of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-339-2-20AJ) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Gaster, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK, BAKER & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Gaster v. Beasley, No. CA-95-339-2-20AJ (D.S.C. July 20, 1995). 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