Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bethea v. Scott, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Two female inmates, Andrea Bethea and Deborah Hubbard, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of their civil rights. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The inmates appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning of the lower court. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7633

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Two female inmates, Andrea Bethea and Deborah Hubbard, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of their civil rights. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The inmates appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning of the lower court. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Bethea v. Scott, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Two female inmates, Andrea Bethea and Deborah Hubbard, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of their civil rights. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The inmates appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record or reasoning of the lower court. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7633

    ANDREA BETHEA; DEBORAH HUBBARD,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    MARY SCOTT, Warden; RICHARD CANNON, Deputy
    Warden; AUBREY MOORE, Deputy Warden; LAURIE
    TAMKIN,
    Librarian;
    DOUG
    CATOE,
    Acting
    Commissioner,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-95-1892-2-1AJ)
    Submitted:

    January 11, 1996

    Decided:

    January 25, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrea Bethea, Deborah Hubbard, Appellants Pro Se.
    Coleman, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Joseph Crouch

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying
    relief on their 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bethea v.
    Scott, No. CA-95-1892-2-1AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 1995). 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