Clay v. State of S.C.

Fourth Circuit

Clay v. State of S.C.

59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23235, 1995 WL 370421

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1995

Docket95-6200

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 165 (Clay v. State of S.C.) 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

Clay v. State of S.C., 59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23235, 1995 WL 370421 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

LEONARD Clay, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services;
Commissioner, South Carolina Department
of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services,
Defendants-
-Appellees.

No. 95-6200.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 22, 1995.

Leonard Clay, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

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 the magistrate judge's recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clay v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-94-964 (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.

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

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

LEONARD Clay, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services;
Commissioner, South Carolina Department
of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services,
Defendants-
-Appellees.

No. 95-6200.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 22, 1995.

Leonard Clay, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

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 the magistrate judge's recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clay v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-94-964 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23235, 1995 WL 370421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-state-of-sc-ca4-1995.