Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0321-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vincent BARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; Curtis Keels, Agent of SCDPPPS; Steven Benjamin, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-7708.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 14, 2002.
    Decided March 22, 2002.
    Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barr v. South Carolina Dep’t of Probation, Parole & Pardon Servs., No. CA-01-3175-2-22 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 12, 2001, entered Sept. 14, 2001; and filed Feb. 7, 2002, entered Feb. 11, 2002). 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.