Filed: Aug. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6491 RONNIE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-3231-3-6BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6491 RONNIE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-3231-3-6BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6491
RONNIE PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director of South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-3231-3-6BC)
Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Phillips, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re-
lief with out prejudice on his complaint alleging that a change in
South Carolina law regarding parole eligibility violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause and precluded his release on parole. We have
reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning
that Appellant's failure to exhaust state remedies precludes this
action. Phillips v. Gunn, No. CA-95-3231-3-6BC (D.S.C. Mar. 15,
1996). See Todd v. Baskerville,
712 F.2d 70, 71-72 (4th Cir. 1983)
(exhaustion required when prisoner challenges constitutionality of
continued confinement and seeks release or shortening of duration
of confinement, even if complaint is styled as a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
(1988) action). 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