Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sanders v. SC Dept of Correc, 04-6979 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6979 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6979 CLEVELAND SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-1127-6-25AK) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clevela
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6979 CLEVELAND SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-1127-6-25AK) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Rawls Edwards, NEXSEN PRUETT, Columbia, South Carolina; T. Lowndes Pope, Roy F. Laney, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cleveland Sanders appeals the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and default judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sanders v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-03-1127-6-25AK (D.S.C. May 24, 2004); Sanders v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-03-1127-6-25AK (D.S.C. filed March 24, 2004 & entered March 25, 2004). 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