Bell v. Evatt

59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23218, 1995 WL 375885
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1995
Docket95-6279
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 165 (Bell v. Evatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. Evatt, 59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23218, 1995 WL 375885 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 165
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Calvin BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, S.C. Department of Corrections;
Benjamin Montgomery, Warden, A.C.I.; Doctor Fender, Medical
Director, A.C.I.; Contract Medical Services, Medical Care
Provider for SCDC; Mr. Brown, Director, Anderson County
Detention Center; Kenneth Adams, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6279.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995
Decided: June 26, 1995

Calvin Bell, appellant pro se.

Douglas McKay, Jr., McKay, McKay, Henry & Foster, P.A., Columbia, SC; William Henry Davidson, II, Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson, Sims, Morrison & Sojourner, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting as modified the magistrate judge's recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. Evatt, No. CA-93-2798-3-8BD (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 1995). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23218, 1995 WL 375885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-evatt-ca4-1995.