Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Curtis Dale Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider its order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7916

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Curtis Dale Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider its order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Richardson v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Curtis Dale Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider its order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7916

    CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIE EAGLETON,
    Warden of Evans Correctional Institution, Individual and
    official capacity; HIPP, Lieutenant, Individual and official
    capacity; EVANS CONTROL TRANSPORTATION AND CLASSIFICATION
    DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, Individual and official capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (4:08-cv-02596-RBH)

    Submitted:

    February 18, 2010

    Decided:

    February 25, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Roy F. Laney, Heath
    McAlvin Stewart, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Curtis

    Dale

    Richardson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying his motion to reconsider the order accepting the


    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
    42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.
    and find no reversible error.
    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    district

    court.

    Richardson

    v.

    South

    Carolina Dept of Corr., No. 4:08-cv-02596-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 1,


    2009).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like