Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
01-6918•Shadreck Abdul Bashshar Kitayatuthelezi, a/k/a Norman Hayes v. WILLIAM D. CATOE, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections
01-6918Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit26.10.2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6918
SHADRECK ABDUL BASHSHAR KITAYATUTHELEZI, a/k/a
Norman Hayes,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM D. CATOE, Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; LAURIE F.
BESSINGER, Warden, Kirkland Correctional
Institution; JOYCE BROWN, Warden, MSU-KCI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
(CA-00-1084-4-12)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shadreck Abdul Bashshar Kitayatuthelezi, Appellant Pro Se. Henry
Ronald Stanley, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shadreck Kitayatuthelezi appeals the district court’s order
accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Although the
district court noted that Kitayatuthelezi failed to file timely
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, it found
nonetheless, that Kitayatuthelezi’s claims were without merit. 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. See
Kitayatuthelezi v. Catoe, No. CA-00-1084-4-12 (D.S.C. May 11,
2001). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.