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)
97-7214•(CA-96-1827-6-13AK) Jackie Willard v. Correctional Officer J. Arnette
97-7214Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 2, 2000
Filed: February 2, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7214
(CA-96-1827-6-13AK)
Jackie Willard,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Correctional Officer J. Arnette, et al,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed February 18, 1998, as
follows:
On the cover sheet and in the text of the opinion -- the
spelling of appellant’s name is corrected to read “Jackie Willard.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
-- 1 of 3 --
2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7214
JACKIE WILLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER J. ARNETTE; LIEUTENANT H.
HENDERSON; SERGEANT MADDOX; CAPTAIN FAULKEN-
BERRY; EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-96-1827-6-13AK)
Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998
Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jackie Willard, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, HARRIS &
MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's
recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af-
firm on the reasoning of the district court. Willard v. Arnette,
No. CA-96-1827-6-13AK (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 1997). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.