Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tyler v. Litwer, 00-7479 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7479 Visitors: 38
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7479 LINDA ANN TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. LITWER, Grievance Coordinator; EARL RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden at Leath Correctional Insti- tution; J. W. PRICE, Sergeant; SERGEANT MCFARLAND; OFFICER MURPHY; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-3744-4-22BF) Submitted: Fe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7479 LINDA ANN TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. LITWER, Grievance Coordinator; EARL RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden at Leath Correctional Insti- tution; J. W. PRICE, Sergeant; SERGEANT MCFARLAND; OFFICER MURPHY; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-3744-4-22BF) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald Patrick Tinsley, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Linda Ann Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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. Tyler v. Litwer, No. CA-99-3744-4-22BF (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2000). We grant Tyler’s motions to supplement her informal brief and we deny the remainder of her outstanding motions. 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