Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6532 WILLIE J. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRUESDALE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-2338-5-12AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6532 WILLIE J. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRUESDALE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-2338-5-12AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6532 WILLIE J. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRUESDALE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-2338-5-12AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie Owens appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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 Owens v. Moore, No. CA-98-2338-5-12AK (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 1999). 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
