Filed: Mar. 31, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7843 NEVELL ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IREN ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-2946-2-10) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nevell Ro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7843 NEVELL ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IREN ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-2946-2-10) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nevell Rog..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7843 NEVELL ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IREN ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-2946-2-10) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nevell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nevell Rogers appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. See Rogers v. Elliott, No. CA-98-2946-2-10 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 1998). 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
