# Buchanan v. Catoe

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 14, 2001 · 3 F. App'x 117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003620

## Case

- **Full name:** Jasper Napoleon BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE; Rickie Harrison; Bonnie Burelle Brown; K. White, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 14, 2001
- **Citations:** 3 F. App'x 117
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkins, Motz, Traxler
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003620

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7329

JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE; RICKIE HARRISON; BONNIE
BURELLE BROWN; K. WHITE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-3185-08BD)

Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eric Petersen,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Jasper Napoleon Buchanan appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com-

plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Buchanan v. Catoe, No. CA-99-3185-08BD (D.S.C.

Aug. 18, 2000). We deny Buchanan’s motion to proceed under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act and 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003620. Public record. Not legal advice.