Filed: Sep. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6901 STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YORK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; BRUCE BRYANT, Sheriff; JOHN SHORT, Chief; RALPH MISLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-438-0-13BD) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILT
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6901 STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YORK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; BRUCE BRYANT, Sheriff; JOHN SHORT, Chief; RALPH MISLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-438-0-13BD) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTO..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6901 STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YORK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; BRUCE BRYANT, Sheriff; JOHN SHORT, Chief; RALPH MISLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-438-0-13BD) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Isaac Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven Isaac Trotman 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the merits of this appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Trotman v. York County Detention Ctr., No. CA-03-438-0-13BD (D.S.C. May 15, 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