Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7590 EARL HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BETHEA, of "Outside Detail" at Evans Cor- rectional Institution; GARVIN GAIEL, Doctor at Evans Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-1906-3-22BC) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7590 EARL HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BETHEA, of "Outside Detail" at Evans Cor- rectional Institution; GARVIN GAIEL, Doctor at Evans Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-1906-3-22BC) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7590 EARL HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BETHEA, of "Outside Detail" at Evans Cor- rectional Institution; GARVIN GAIEL, Doctor at Evans Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-1906-3-22BC) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Holloway, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earl Holloway appeals the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) 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. Holloway v. Bethea, No. CA-96-1906-3-22BC (D.S.C. Sept. 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
