Case Name: Phillip Paul GOODYEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Ricky Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Brenda Scott, Caseworker at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Miller, Lieutenant at Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-17
Citations: 32 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 01-7962
Parties: Phillip Paul GOODYEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Ricky Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Brenda Scott, Caseworker at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Miller, Lieutenant at Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 691–691

Head Matter:
Phillip Paul GOODYEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Ricky Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Brenda Scott, Caseworker at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Miller, Lieutenant at Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7962.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
Decided April 17, 2002.
Phillip Paul Goodyear, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, Terry B. Millar, L.L.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Phillip Paul Goodyear appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Goodyear v. Catoe, CA-01-20-BD (D.S.C. filed Oct. 19, 2001; entered Oct. 22, 2001). 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.