Filed: Oct. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7118 CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH R. BOCHENEK, Director, Richland County Detention Center; WILLIAM BOWMAN, Lieutenant, Richland County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2708-3-24) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before NIEME
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7118 CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH R. BOCHENEK, Director, Richland County Detention Center; WILLIAM BOWMAN, Lieutenant, Richland County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2708-3-24) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before NIEMEY..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7118 CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH R. BOCHENEK, Director, Richland County Detention Center; WILLIAM BOWMAN, Lieutenant, Richland County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2708-3-24) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com- plaint. 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. Bochenek, No. CA-00-2708-3-24 (D.S.C. May 25, 2001). Assuming, without deciding, that an affi- davit received in this court from non-party Lewis Garvin, together with a certificate of service from Williams, should be construed as a motion by Williams to accept the affidavit for consideration, the motion is denied. 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