Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Slappy v. Vanmeter, 97-6419 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6419 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6419 ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES W. VANMETER, Regional Hearing Officer; PAUL W. BREWTON, CACI Investigator; SCOTT PORTER, Inmate Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-2277-22-BD) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6419 ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES W. VANMETER, Regional Hearing Officer; PAUL W. BREWTON, CACI Investigator; SCOTT PORTER, Inmate Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-2277-22-BD) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Eugene Slappy, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, COTHRAN, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Slappy v. Vanmeter, No. CA-93- 2277-22-BD (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 1997). 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 deci- sional 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