Michael F. Dehoney v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Parker Evatt, Commissioner William D. Catoe, Deputy Commissioner

Fourth Circuit

Michael F. Dehoney v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Parker Evatt, Commissioner William D. Catoe, Deputy Commissioner

72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39549, 1995 WL 736863

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1995

Docket95-7270

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 126 (Michael F. Dehoney v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Parker Evatt, Commissioner William D. Catoe, Deputy Commissioner) 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

Michael F. Dehoney v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Parker Evatt, Commissioner William D. Catoe, Deputy Commissioner, 72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39549, 1995 WL 736863 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

72 F.3d 126
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Parker Evatt,
Commissioner; William D. Catoe, Deputy
Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7270.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3169-21-BD)

Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

S.D.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint alleging that the state's operation of a prison canteen system violated federal antitrust laws. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehoney v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-94-3169-21-BD (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 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

72 F.3d 126
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.

Michael F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Parker Evatt,
Commissioner; William D. Catoe, Deputy
Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7270.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3169-21-BD)

Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

S.D.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint alleging that the state's operation of a prison canteen system violated federal antitrust laws. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehoney v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-94-3169-21-BD (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 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)

72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39549, 1995 WL 736863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-f-dehoney-v-south-carolina-department-of-c-ca4-1995.