Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barr v. SC Dept Prob Parole, 01-7708 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7708 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7708 VINCENT BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; CURTIS KEELS, Agent of SCDPPPS; STEVEN BENJAMIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-3175-2-22) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circui
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7708 VINCENT BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; CURTIS KEELS, Agent of SCDPPPS; STEVEN BENJAMIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-3175-2-22) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barr v. South Carolina Dep’t of Probation, Parole & Pardon Servs., No. CA-01- 3175-2-22 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 12, 2001, entered Sept. 14, 2001; and filed Feb. 7, 2002, entered Feb. 11, 2002). 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