Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gibbs v. State of SC, 02-6135 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6135 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6135 JOSEPH HUGO GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; WILLIAM D. CATOE, former Director of SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-3646-3-10BC) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circui
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6135 JOSEPH HUGO GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; WILLIAM D. CATOE, former Director of SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-3646-3-10BC) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Hugo Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Hugo Gibbs appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint and denying his motions for reconsideration and to amend the judgment order. 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 Gibbs v. South Carolina, No. CA-01-3646-3-10BC (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2001; filed Nov. 30, 2001 & entered Dec. 3, 2001). 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