Filed: Jul. 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6511 CURTIS R. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; A.J. PADULA; D. MITCHELL; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., Division Director Classification and Inmate Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-693-6) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6511 CURTIS R. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; A.J. PADULA; D. MITCHELL; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., Division Director Classification and Inmate Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-693-6) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON, L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6511 CURTIS R. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; A.J. PADULA; D. MITCHELL; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., Division Director Classification and Inmate Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-693-6) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis R. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis R. Hill 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 Hill v. County Corr. Inst., No. CA-05-693-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2005). 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 -
