Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carolina v. SC Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Richard Carolina filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on the complaint and declined to reconsider that order. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of relief or refusal to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming the rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-01-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6625

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Carolina filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on the complaint and declined to reconsider that order. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of relief or refusal to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming the rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    Carolina v. SC Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Carolina filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and several employees alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on the complaint and declined to reconsider that order. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of relief or refusal to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming the rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6625

    RICHARD A. CAROLINA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C.
    J. CEPAK, Warden, Broad River Correctional
    Institution; WILLIAM M. WHITE, Associate
    Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution;
    TIMOTHY RILEY, Captain, Broad River Correctional Institution; PAULA WOODLIEF, School
    Teacher, Broad River Correctional Institution;
    LINDA ALLEN, Corporal, Broad River Correctional Institution,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-97-1312-6-17AK)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 1998

    Decided:

    January 5, 1999

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Richard A. Carolina, Appellant Pro Se.
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Holly Saleeby Atkins,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard A. Carolina appeals the district courts orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint
    and declining to reconsider that order.

    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion


    accepting

    the

    magistrate

    reversible error.

    judges

    recommendation

    and

    find

    no

    Moreover, the district court did not abuse its

    discretion in declining to reconsider its order.

    Accordingly, we

    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Carolina v.

    Department of Corrections, No. CA-97-1312-6-17AK (D.S.C. Feb. 10,


    1998; Mar. 16, 1998).

    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