Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walters v. Orangeburg County, 00-2442 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2442 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2442 LORI A. WALTERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1115-5-22BC) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: August 1, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and Frederic N. SMALKIN, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2442 LORI A. WALTERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1115-5-22BC) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: August 1, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and Frederic N. SMALKIN, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric S. Bland, ERIC S. BLAND & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Lawrence J. Needle, LAWRENCE J. NEEDLE, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. D.L. (Dirk) Aydlette, Shahin Vafai, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lori Walters appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant and denying Walters’ motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Walters v. Orange- burg County, No. CA-99-1115-5-22BC (D.S.C. filed Aug. 1, 2000; entered Aug. 2, 2000, and Oct. 13, 2000). 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