Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Mitchum, 00-6783 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6783 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6783 DARRELL J. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Abdullah Wajid Sami, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE MITCHUM, Librarian at Lieber Correc- tional Institution; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-98-3033-4-12BF) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6783 DARRELL J. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Abdullah Wajid Sami, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE MITCHUM, Librarian at Lieber Correc- tional Institution; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-98-3033-4-12BF) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Peter G. Nistad, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darrell J. Williams appeals the district court’s order grant- ing summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action.* 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 Williams v. Mitchum, No. CA-98-3033-4-12BF (D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2000; entered Mar. 31, 2000). Furthermore, we deny Williams’ motion to reduce the fees due under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West Supp. 2000). We dis- pense 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 * Williams also assigns error to the magistrate judge’s orders regarding certain discovery motions. We find no abuse of discre- tion in the disposition of these motions. 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