Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Riley v. McMaster, 05-7379 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7379 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7379 NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General; LYNN DUNN; JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-22827) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7379 NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General; LYNN DUNN; JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-22827) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina; Teresa A. Knox, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel C. Riley, II, 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 Riley v. McMaster, No. CA-04-22827 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 9, 2005 & entered Aug. 10, 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 -
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