Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harley v. Gardner, 02-6662 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6662 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jun. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6662 THOMAS HARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARDNER, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON, at Kershaw Correctional Institution; MICHAEL J. BEINOR, MD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-2207-3-25BC) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6662 THOMAS HARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARDNER, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON, at Kershaw Correctional Institution; MICHAEL J. BEINOR, MD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-2207-3-25BC) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Fulda, James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Harley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. Harley v. Gardner, No. CA-01-2207-3-25BC (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 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