Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Slappy v. Vanmeter, 95-7729 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7729 Visitors: 43
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7729 ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES W. VANMETER, Regional Hearing Officer; PAUL W. BREWTON, Investigator; SCOTT PORTER, Inmate Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-2277-7-22BD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7729 ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES W. VANMETER, Regional Hearing Officer; PAUL W. BREWTON, Investigator; SCOTT PORTER, Inmate Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-2277-7-22BD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Eugene Slappy, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, COTHRAN, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Slappy v. Vanmeter, No. CA-93-2277-7-22BD (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 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