Filed: May 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7955 LEO L. MADDOX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PFC WALKER, Private First Class, Badge No. 102, in his individual and official capacity; KENNETH H. MATTISON, Judge, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA- 95-3142-3-18-BC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7955 LEO L. MADDOX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PFC WALKER, Private First Class, Badge No. 102, in his individual and official capacity; KENNETH H. MATTISON, Judge, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA- 95-3142-3-18-BC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996 B..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7955 LEO L. MADDOX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PFC WALKER, Private First Class, Badge No. 102, in his individual and official capacity; KENNETH H. MATTISON, Judge, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA- 95-3142-3-18-BC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo L. Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maddox v. Walker, No. CA-95-3142-3-18-BC (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 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
