Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0939-01.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; Williamburg County Clerk of Court; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Willie Eagleton; Dolly Pratt; Joyce Hanna; Carolyn Williams; Angela Hepburn; Jacob Wilson; Curtis Keels; Phillip Mccloud; Steven Benjamin, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-7800.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 17, 2003.
    Decided April 18, 2003.
    Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Jay Hupfer, Willcox, Buyck & Williams, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    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    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.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 order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Barr v. South Carolina Dep’t of Probation, Parole and Pardon Servs., No. CA-02-1060-2-22 (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 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.