Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Blakely v. County of Greenville, 99-7549 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7549 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7549 JIMMY G. BLAKELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF GREENVILLE; GREENVILLE COUNTY DETEN- TION CENTER; GERALD SEALS; JIM DORRIETY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2468-0-24) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7549 JIMMY G. BLAKELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF GREENVILLE; GREENVILLE COUNTY DETEN- TION CENTER; GERALD SEALS; JIM DORRIETY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2468-0-24) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy G. Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy G. Blakely appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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. See Blakely v. County of Greenville, No. CA-98-2468-0-24 (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 1999). 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 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