James v. Thickens, (4th Cir. 1997)

Docket Number: 96-7227

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7227

ELWALDO R. JAMES, a/k/a Donald Mitchell, a/k/a

Calvin B. Smith, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

J. THICKENS, Investigator, Rock Hill Police

Department; C. RUSSELL, Police Officer, Rock

Hill Police Department; C. LONG, Chief, Rock Hill City Police Department Jail; individually

and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-1114-2-6AJ)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elwaldo R. James, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, MCKINNEY,

GIVENS & MILLAR, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error in the denial of § 1983 relief. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. James v. Thickens , No. CA-94-1114- 2-6AJ (D.S.C. July 2, 1996; July 25, 1996). We also note that although the district court did not address Appellant's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action which requires Appellant to exhaust state court remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Hamlin v. Warren , 664 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 455 U.S. 911 (1982). 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