Stefen Harris v. Warden Eagleton


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04173-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000049270]. Mailed to: Stefen Emira Harris KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 4848 Goldmine Highway Kershaw, SC 29067-0000. [16-7287]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7287 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7287 RAS. STEFEN E. HARRIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN EAGLETON; ASSO WARDEN BRADSHAW; CHAPLAIN WILKS; CAPT KELLY; DIRECTOR BYARS, being sued in their individual and official capacities as an employee in the scope of official duties and Public Duty Rule; SC DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, being sued as an agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-04173-HMH) Submitted: March 21, 2017 Decided: March 27, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ras. Stefen Emira Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7287 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ras. Stefen E. Harris appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Warden, No. 0:15-cv-04173-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?