Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Atkinson v. Evatt, 95-7327 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7327 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7327 WILSON ATKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; KENNETH D. MCKELLAR, Deputy Regional Administrator, South Carolina Department of Corrections; KENNETH WOODINGTON, Employee, Headquarters, South Carolina Depart- ment of Corrections; WILLIAM H. DAVIS, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; L. J. ALLEN, Regional Administrator; WILLIAM CATOE, Deputy Comm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7327 WILSON ATKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; KENNETH D. MCKELLAR, Deputy Regional Administrator, South Carolina Department of Corrections; KENNETH WOODINGTON, Employee, Headquarters, South Carolina Depart- ment of Corrections; WILLIAM H. DAVIS, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; L. J. ALLEN, Regional Administrator; WILLIAM CATOE, Deputy Commissioner of Operations; GASTON FAIREY, Attorney for "Nelson" Decree; JOHN SHUPPER, Plaintiff Monitor for "Nelson" Decree, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-94-2236-3-19-BC) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilson Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Llewellyn Pope, POPE & RODGERS, Columbia, South Carolina; John Christopher Mills, FAIREY, PARISE & MILLS, P.A., Columbia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magis- trate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkinson v. Evatt, No. CA-94-2236-3-19-BC (D.S.C. July 27, 1995). We dis- pense 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