Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rothwell v. Campbell, 95-7691 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7691 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7691 JAMES CALVIN ROTHWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, Governor, State of South Carolina; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GENE BAKER; TONY ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-2194-2-2AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7691 JAMES CALVIN ROTHWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, Governor, State of South Carolina; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GENE BAKER; TONY ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-2194-2-2AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 25, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Calvin Rothwell, Appellant Pro Se. John Gregg McMaster, Jr., TOMPKINS & MCMASTER, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Eric Peter- sen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Rothwell v. Campbell, No. CA-93-2194-2-2AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 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