The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6783•Darrell J. Williams, a/k/a Abdullah Wajid Sami v. GRACE MITCHUM, Librarian at Lieber Correc- tional Institution
00-6783Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 16, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6783
DARRELL J. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Abdullah Wajid
Sami,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GRACE MITCHUM, Librarian at Lieber Correc-
tional Institution; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of
South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
(CA-98-3033-4-12BF)
Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Peter G. Nistad, HOOD LAW
FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Williams also assigns error to the magistrate judge’s orders
regarding certain discovery motions. We find no abuse of discre-
tion in the disposition of these motions.
2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell J. Williams appeals the district court’s order grant-
ing summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. §
1983 (West Supp. 2000) action.* 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 Williams v.
Mitchum, No. CA-98-3033-4-12BF (D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2000; entered
Mar. 31, 2000). Furthermore, we deny Williams’ motion to reduce
the fees due under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West Supp. 2000). We dis-
pense 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.