Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Woods v. State of SC, 95-7459 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7459 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7459 STANLEY EUGENE WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3283-3-3BC) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7459 STANLEY EUGENE WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3283-3-3BC) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Eugene Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Woods v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-3283-3-3BC (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 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