Frank M. Gaster v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections

73 F.3d 357, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40387, 1995 WL 756346
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 21, 1995
Docket94-7061
StatusPublished

This text of 73 F.3d 357 (Frank M. Gaster v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections) 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
Frank M. Gaster v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections, 73 F.3d 357, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40387, 1995 WL 756346 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

73 F.3d 357
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frank M. GASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Members of the South Carolina Board
of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7061.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 21, 1995.

Frank M. Gaster, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, Barbara Murcier Bowens, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

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. Gaster v. Evatt, No. CA-92-2526-3-20AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 1994). 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)
73 F.3d 357, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40387, 1995 WL 756346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-m-gaster-v-parker-evatt-commissioner-south-c-ca4-1995.