Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Frank Gaster filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit to Gaster's appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny Gaster's complaint. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 19 F.3d 1429 Docket: 93-7225

    Original Title

    Frank M. Gaster v. William W. Catoe, Deputy Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, and Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections, 19 F.3d 1429, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Frank Gaster filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit to Gaster's appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny Gaster's complaint. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frank Gaster filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit to Gaster's appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny Gaster's complaint. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    19 F.

    3d 1429

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Frank M. GASTER, Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    William W. CATOE, Deputy Commissioner, South Carolina
    Department of Corrections, and Members of the
    South Carolina Board of Corrections,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 93-7225.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Jan. 20, 1994.
    Decided: Feb. 25, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
    Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-193-20AJ)
    Frank M. Gaster, Appellant Pro Se.
    Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, Barbara Murcier Bowens,
    South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.
    D.S.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    1

    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that
    this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district court. Gaster v. Catoe, No. CA-93-19-3-20AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 1993).
    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

    You might also like