Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Isaac v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Roosevelt Isaac filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and health services division alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Isaac's subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court rulings, finding no reversible error in the acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny § 1983 relief or in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming its decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Isaac v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    59 views2 pages
    Roosevelt Isaac filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and health services division alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Isaac's subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court rulings, finding no reversible error in the acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny § 1983 relief or in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming its decisions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7286

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roosevelt Isaac filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and health services division alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Isaac's subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court rulings, finding no reversible error in the acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny § 1983 relief or in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming its decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    59 views2 pages

    Isaac v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Roosevelt Isaac filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and health services division alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Isaac's subsequent Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court rulings, finding no reversible error in the acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny § 1983 relief or in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in affirming its decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7286

    ROOSEVELT ISAAC,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL W. MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; JAMES L.
    HARVEY; LAURIE F. BESSINGER; SIMMS HUNTER
    RENTZ; JOHN H. BOULWARE; MICHAEL REINER; GAIL
    REINERS; DENNIS DAVIS; GAIL FRICKS; BARBARA
    SKEEN; J. GLENN ALEWINE; SCDC DIVISION OF
    HEALTH SERVICES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CA-98-2826-3-19BC)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 1999

    Decided:

    November 24, 1999

    Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Roosevelt Isaac, Appellant Pro Se.
    Andrew Frederick Lindemann,
    DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina;
    James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Roosevelt Isaac appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and
    his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion accepting the magistrate


    judges recommendation to deny 1983 relief, and the courts order
    denying

    the

    Rule

    59(e)

    motion

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    Isaac v. Moore, No. CA-98-2826-3-19BC (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 1999).*

    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

    Although the district courts orders are marked as filed


    on August 20 and August 30, 1999, the district courts records show
    that they were entered on the docket sheet on September 2, 1999.
    Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure, it is the date that the orders were entered on the
    docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district
    courts decisions. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35
    (4th Cir. 1986).
    2

    You might also like