Burks v. Pate

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Burks v. Pate. Read the opinion of the Court — 119 F. App'x 447
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 28, 2006·No. 05-7321·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7321

TROY LUKE BURKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN PATE, Acting Warden; BETTY E. ALBRITTON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; P. FELDER, Unit Sergeant; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-4014-3)

Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: April 28, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Luke Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., CAROLINA LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Troy Luke Burks 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

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burks v. Pate,

No. CA-02-4014-3 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 8, 2005 & entered Aug. 9,

2005). 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

- 2 -

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

Burks v. Pate, (4th Cir. 2006).

Burks v. Pate (Burks v. Pate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related