UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6172
MICHAEL C. BAXLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MICHAEL W. MOORE, Commissioner; WILLIAM R.
DAVIS, Warden; GEORGE N. MARTIN, III, Regional
Director; WILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Director;
DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER; TIM BETHEA, In-
mate Representative; CAPTAIN HUGHES, Lee C.I.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-7460
MICHAEL C. BAXLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MICHAEL W. MOORE, Commissioner; WILLIAM R.
DAVIS, Warden; GEORGE N. MARTIN, III, Regional
Director; WILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Director;
CAPTAIN HUGHES, Lee C.I., DISCIPLINARY HEARING
OFFICER; TIM BETHEA, Inmate Representative,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge; William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-2344-6-
17AK)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael C. Baxley, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr.,
CLARKSON, FORTSON, WALSH & RHENEY, P.A., Greenville, South Caro-
lina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael C. Baxley appeals from the district court’s orders:
(1) denying his motion to amend his complaint; (2) denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint; and (3)
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the rec-
ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Baxley v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-98-2344-6-
17AK (D.S.C. Jan. 8; June 4; and Oct. 7, 1999). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3