Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7391 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden individually and/or in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1902-4-21BE) Submitted: December 19
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7391 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden individually and/or in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1902-4-21BE) Submitted: December 19,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7391 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden individually and/or in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1902-4-21BE) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion to amend the court's order. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommenda- tion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehoney v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-94-1902-4-21BE (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 1996; Aug. 26, 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