Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Burgess v. Taylor, 03-6542 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6542 Visitors: 66
Filed: Jun. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6542 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLAKE E. TAYLOR, JR.; JOTTE SCARBOROUGH, individually and in their official capacities as employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-1090-8-22) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6542 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLAKE E. TAYLOR, JR.; JOTTE SCARBOROUGH, individually and in their official capacities as employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-1090-8-22) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burgess v. Taylor, No. CA-02-1090-8-22 (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2003). 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