Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Eggers v. Cherokee County, 98-2148 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2148 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2148 TERESA A. EGGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENN HENSLEY; REBECCA S. JEFFERIES; SANDRA GREENE, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and HARVEY PEELER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3886-7-13) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decide
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2148 TERESA A. EGGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENN HENSLEY; REBECCA S. JEFFERIES; SANDRA GREENE, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and HARVEY PEELER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3886-7-13) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Suzanne E. Coe, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin W. Sturm, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, STURM, CLARK & KEIM, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Teresa A. Eggers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) and South Carolina state law. 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 substantially on the reasoning of the dis- trict court.* See Eggers v. Cherokee County, No. CA-96-3886-7-13 (D.S.C. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * On appeal, Eggers has abandoned her state law claims and those claims the district court found barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer