Moore v. Tillman ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-8453
    EDDIE MOORE,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    RUDOLPH   TILLMAN,  in  his   individual  capacity;  JANICE
    MONTGOMERY, in her individual capacity; WILLIAM WHITE, in
    his individual capacity; DONALD DRISKILL, in his individual
    capacity; DENISE HINSON, in her individual capacity; GLENN
    S. SHERMAN, in his individual capacity; CHARLES YATES, in
    his individual capacity; GLENDA ROBINSON, in her individual
    capacity; MARSHALL CLEMENT SANFORD, JR., in his individual
    capacity; ROBERT M. STEVENSON, in his individual and
    official capacity; JON OZMINT, in his individual and
    official capacity,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:07-cv-03209-RBH)
    Submitted:    July 23, 2009                 Decided:   July 27, 2009
    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eddie Moore, Appellant Pro Se.   Frank Barnwell McMaster, John
    Gregg McMaster, Jr.,    TOMPKINS & MCMASTER, Columbia, South
    Carolina; David Michael Tatarsky, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Eddie    Moore      appeals       the   district      court’s      order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief    on    his    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
          (2006)    complaint.       We      have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.                        Accordingly,
    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.                           Moore
    v.   Tillman,      No.       3:07-cv-03209-RBH         (D.S.C.    Aug.    18,     2008;
    Sept. 25, 2008).            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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-8453

Filed Date: 7/27/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014