Filed: Apr. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7917 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner of the South Caro- lina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1334-10-21BD) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7917 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner of the South Caro- lina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1334-10-21BD) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7917
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PARKER EVATT, Commissioner of the South Caro-
lina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS
MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-1334-10-21BD)
Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Leon
Morrison, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his
motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. We also find
no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Appel-
lant's Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Burgess v. Evatt, No. CA-94-1334-10-21BD
(D.S.C. Aug. 7, 1995; Sept. 15, 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