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

Harden v. Moore

Harden v. Moore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 7, 1999

Harden v. Moore

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6825

WILLIAM G. HARDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

CRAIG M. MOORE; JOHN C. BLACK; DEPUTY PACK; DEPUTY HAUSER; SERGEANT GRIFFIN; SERGEANT BAKER; MASTER DEPUTY GALE; MASTER DEPUTY J. A.

ROBERTSON; ETTAPHINE P. JAMES-REID; JOYCE L.

KROLAK, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-498-6)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William G. Harden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: William G. Harden appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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. See Harden v. Moore, No. CA-99-498-6 (D.S.C. May 28, 1999). We deny Harden’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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