John A. Haynes, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John P. Hartman; John Doe Merchant; Laurine Carmichael;shirley Doe, Defendants-appellees, 17 F.3d 1433 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 17 F.3d 1433 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted Dec. 20, 1993. Decided March 3, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-2214-2-6BC)

John A. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se.

James Albert Stuckey, Jr., Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, SC, for Appellees.

S.D.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.*  Haynes v. Hartman, No. CA-92-2214-2-6BC (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 1993). 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

 *

Because of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, we find that disposal of this case without express consideration of Appellant's claim of deprivation of telephone access constituted harmless error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.