Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Marshall v. Maxcey, 96-6417 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6417 Visitors: 30
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6417 BUSTER MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. MAXCEY; CAPTAIN GILLESPIE; DEPUTY WARDEN FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1856-6-3AK) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6417 BUSTER MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. MAXCEY; CAPTAIN GILLESPIE; DEPUTY WARDEN FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1856-6-3AK) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Buster Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Ronald Stanley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, but modify the district court's order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. Marshall v. Maxcey, No. CA-95-1856-6-3AK (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 1996). 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 AS MODIFIED 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