U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2003

Muldrow v. Eagleton

Muldrow v. Eagleton
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided December 22, 2003

Muldrow v. Eagleton

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7118

EDWARD LEON MULDROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; MAJOR JOYNER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-3294-22BC-3)

Submitted: November 14, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Leon Muldrow, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, HARRIS & MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Edward Leon Muldrow appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Brown v. French, 147 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir. 1998). See Muldrow v. Eagleton, No. CA-02-3294-22BC-3 (D.S.C. May 30, 2003; July 7, 2003). 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

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