Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Logan v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Robert Logan, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous South Carolina Department of Corrections officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6402

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Logan, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous South Carolina Department of Corrections officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Logan v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Logan, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous South Carolina Department of Corrections officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-6402

    ROBERT STEVEN LOGAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EARL BROWN, Unit Manager; CHARLES BROCK,
    Deputy Warden; RICHARD LINDLER, Warden; L. F.
    BESSINGER, Warden; JOYCE BROWN, Unit Manager;
    CHARLES MOORE, Inmate Representative; JAMES L.
    HARVEY, Regional Administrator; WILLIAM D.
    CATOE, Deputy Commissioner for Operations;
    PARKER EVATT, Ex-Commissioner; JOHN R. MAXEY,
    Investigator; GENE NOLES, Assistant Ombudsman;
    SAMMIE D. BROWN, Director of Classification;
    MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; E. JENNINGS, Correctional Officer; T. MURRAY, Lieutenant;
    SAMPSON PARKER, JR., Correctional Officer;
    TARA HOPKINS, Correctional Officer, TIM RILEY,
    Chief of Monitoring and Evaluation Branch,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-97-296-3-20-BC)

    Submitted:

    September 15, 1998

    Decided:

    October 19, 1998

    Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Steven Logan, Appellant Pro Se. W. Howard Boyd, Jr., GIBBES,
    GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district courts order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion accepting the
    magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Logan
    v. Brown, No. CA-97-296-3-20-BC (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 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