Filed: Oct. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7239 ANGELO B. HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (6:07-cv-01626-DCN) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7239 ANGELO B. HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (6:07-cv-01626-DCN) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7239 ANGELO B. HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (6:07-cv-01626-DCN) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angelo B. Ham 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. Ham v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. 6:07-cv-01626-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2007). 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 -
