Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Padgett v. Harrison, 99-6606 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6606 Visitors: 28
Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6606 JAMES L. PADGETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKY HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; LARRY BATSON, Legal Counsel; MAJOR NEASMAN; SERGEANT COMMANDER, Contraband Officer; WOODLY, Librarian Kershaw Correction- al Institution, South Carolina Department of Corrections; MRS. CAUTHEN, Property Control; MRS. GALLOWAY, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6606 JAMES L. PADGETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKY HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; LARRY BATSON, Legal Counsel; MAJOR NEASMAN; SERGEANT COMMANDER, Contraband Officer; WOODLY, Librarian Kershaw Correction- al Institution, South Carolina Department of Corrections; MRS. CAUTHEN, Property Control; MRS. GALLOWAY, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1259-6) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Padgett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lesli Brown Darwin, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Padgett, Jr., 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 Padgett v. Harrison, No. CA-98-1259-6 (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
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