U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

Michau v. Moore

Michau v. Moore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 27, 1999

Michau v. Moore

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7627

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; MR. MONTGOM- ERY, Warden (former) of Allendale Correctional Institution; R. J. ALLEN, Regional Director; TONY L. STRAWHORNE, Deputy Director; MCKITHER BODISON, Deputy Warden of Allendale Cor- rectional Institution; MS. HAYES, Principal (former); SANDRA M. HUMMEL, Librarian (former) of Allendale Correctional Institution; MR. MEDLIN, Guidance Counselor and Interim Librarian; MR. DODGE, Tutor/Teacher Super- visor; MR. COHEN, Head of Classification; GERALDINE P. MIRO; MR. HUDSON, Classification Worker; PARKER EVATT, Director (former) of SCDC; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, Unknown employees of SCDC, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3582-6-8AK)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 27, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Merl Floyd Code, Sr., CODE, WESTON & MOSLEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and an earlier order granting in part summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accept- ing in part the magistrate judge's recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Michau v. Moore, No. CA-96-3582-6-8AK (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 1998 & Mar. 18, 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 deci- sional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.