Filed: Nov. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6925 ROLAND DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANE CRIBB; MICHALE SHWARTZ; CORPORAL CURRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-3066-6-23AK) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6925 ROLAND DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANE CRIBB; MICHALE SHWARTZ; CORPORAL CURRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-3066-6-23AK) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6925 ROLAND DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANE CRIBB; MICHALE SHWARTZ; CORPORAL CURRY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-3066-6-23AK) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Walter Doar, Jr., David J. Mills, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roland Davis, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees in Davis’ action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). 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. See Davis v. Cribb, No. CA-98-3066-6-23AK (D.S.C. June 23, 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