# Frank M. Gaster v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 21, 1995 · 73 F.3d 357

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/710388

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 21, 1995
- **Citations:** 73 F.3d 357; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40387; 1995 WL 756346
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/710388

## Opinion text

73 F.3d 357
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank M. GASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Members of the South Carolina Board
of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-7061.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 21, 1995.
Frank M. Gaster, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, Barbara Murcier Bowens, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gaster v. Evatt, No. CA-92-2526-3-20AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 1994). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/710388. Public record. Not legal advice.