U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2011

Edwin Hazel, III v. C. McElvogue

Edwin Hazel, III v. C. McElvogue
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 23, 2011

Edwin Hazel, III v. C. McElvogue

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6740

EDWIN REEVES HAZEL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. MCELVOGUE, Captain, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:10-cv-00524-RMG)

Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Reeves Hazel, III, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Harry V. Ragsdale, CORRIGAN & CHANDLER, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Edwin Reeves Hazel, III, appeals the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment to Appellee Captain C.

McElvogue, and dismissing Hazel’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Hazel v. McElvogue, No. 8:10-cv-00524-RMG (D.S.C. Apr.

25, 2011). We grant McElvogue’s motion to strike certain affidavits from the docket. 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.

DISMISSED

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