Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Feurtado v. McNair, 00-7253 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7253 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7253 ANTHONY FEURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MCNAIR, Deputized DEA Special Agent; CHANDLER; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; RICHLAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MDC LOS ANGELES, Bureau of Prisons; SAM DUNNIVANT; ROBERT MCCAULEY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; SOLOMON BLATT, JR., Honorable, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7253 ANTHONY FEURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MCNAIR, Deputized DEA Special Agent; CHANDLER; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; RICHLAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MDC LOS ANGELES, Bureau of Prisons; SAM DUNNIVANT; ROBERT MCCAULEY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; SOLOMON BLATT, JR., Honorable, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-2582-3-17) Submitted: November 16, 2000 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Feurtado, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Feurtado appeals the district court’s orders dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) claim against Judge Blatt with prejudice, revoking his unvested good time credits for malicious prosecution, and denying his motion for recusal of Judge Anderson. Feurtado filed multiple motions for post-judgment relief including a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and two motions to reconsider. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Feurtado v. McNair, No. CA-99-2582-3-17 (D.S.C. July 20, 2000; Aug. 18, 2000; Sept. 20, 2000). In addition, we deny Feurtado’s motion to amend the record. 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