Pressley v. Rutledge , 82 F. App'x 857 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    LARRY L. PRESSLEY,                     
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN DOE, Mailroom Coordinator of
    South Carolina Department of                      No. 03-7135
    Corrections; GARY D. MAYNARD,
    Director of the South Carolina
    Department of Corrections,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
    (CA-02-4020)
    Submitted: December 11, 2003
    Decided: December 23, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed in part and vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opin-
    ion.
    COUNSEL
    Larry L. Pressley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDON-
    ALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.
    2                           PRESSLEY v. DOE
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry L. Pressley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accept-
    ing the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
    his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court’s opinion and to the extent that Pressley’s objec-
    tions to the magistrate judge’s report were sufficient to preserve
    appellate review, there was no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pressley v. Doe,
    No. CA-02-4020 (D.S.C. July 16, 2003); see also Wright v. Collins,
    
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v. Johnson, 
    687 F.2d 44
    , 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Because, however, Pressley’s action was dis-
    missed upon a grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, we
    vacate the district court’s order to the extent it assessed a strike pursu-
    ant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) (2000). 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 IN PART; VACATED IN PART
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7135

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 857

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024