Joseph Downs v. Paul Hill Perry R. Eichor Superintendent, Greenville County Detention Center

979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35185, 1992 WL 344773
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 23, 1992
Docket92-6621
StatusUnpublished

This text of 979 F.2d 847 (Joseph Downs v. Paul Hill Perry R. Eichor Superintendent, Greenville County Detention Center) 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
Joseph Downs v. Paul Hill Perry R. Eichor Superintendent, Greenville County Detention Center, 979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35185, 1992 WL 344773 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

979 F.2d 847

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Joseph DOWNS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Paul HILL; Perry R. Eichor; Superintendent, Greenville
County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6621.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 1992
Decided: November 23, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge.

Joseph Downs, Appellant Pro Se.

W. Howard Boyd, Jr., Gibbes & Clarkson, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Downs appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Downs v. Hill, No. CA90-1558-6 (D.S.C. May 8, 1992). 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

Related

Gardner (John Sterling, Jr.) v. Dixon (Gary)
979 F.2d 847 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35185, 1992 WL 344773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-downs-v-paul-hill-perry-r-eichor-superinten-ca4-1992.