Ham v. Ozmint
This text of Ham v. Ozmint (Ham v. Ozmint) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6259
ANGELO B. HAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, SCDC Director; LAURIE MILLER, LCI Grievance Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:08-cv-02896-DCN)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the dismissal of Ham's § 1983 complaint for the
reasons stated by the district court, and, finding no abuse of
discretion, further affirm the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. *
Ham v. Ozmint, No. 6:08-cv-02896-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2008).
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
* See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ham v. Ozmint, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-ozmint-ca4-2009.