Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lloyd v. Smith-Harris, 96-6769 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6769 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6769 DONALD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. SMITH-HARRIS, Corporal; ANGELA PICKNEY RUIZ, Hearing Officer; JOHN I. NICHOLS, Inmates' Representative; EDSELL T. TAYLOR, Warden of MacDougall Correctional Institution and the Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3255
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6769 DONALD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. SMITH-HARRIS, Corporal; ANGELA PICKNEY RUIZ, Hearing Officer; JOHN I. NICHOLS, Inmates' Representative; EDSELL T. TAYLOR, Warden of MacDougall Correctional Institution and the Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3255-6-1AK) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, TOMKINS & MCMASTER, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Lloyd v. Smith- Harris, No. CA-95-3255-6-1AK (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 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 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