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)
01-6662•Linda Ann Tyler v. C. HILL, Lieuten- ant
01-6662Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 13, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6662
LINDA ANN TYLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GLORIA JEAN RACKLEY; EARL RICHARD BAZZLE,
Warden at Leath Correctional Institution;
CHARLES KEARNEY, JR., Captain; DIANE HAMRICK,
Lieutenant; MELISSA WHITT; BERNICE WIGGLETON,
Major; BARBARA L. PARTILEDGE, Officer; R.
IRBY, Mental Health Counselor; DIANE LITWER,
Grievance Coordinator; RANCE COBB, Principal;
BETTY FLEMING, Sergeant; V. C. HILL, Lieuten-
ant; SANDRA SHUMATE, Operations at Leath Cor-
rectional Institution; T. J. PHILSON, Captain;
SHERRI CHANDLER, Administrative Assistant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-99-2845-4-24-BF)
Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 13, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. McDonald Patrick Tinsley,
Steven Michael Pruit, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON,
Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Linda Ann Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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
Tyler v. Rackley, No. CA-99-2845-4-24-BF (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2001).
We grant Tyler’s motion to file a response to Appellees’ brief and
deny each of her remaining outstanding motions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly 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.