Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barr v. Williamsburg Cnty, 03-6117 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6117 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6117 VINCENT BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; KELVIN WASHINGTON, Sheriff; G. F. PRESSLEY, Jail Administrator; DAVID BRAYBOY, Chief Security; FNU MCCRAY, Lieutenant; SAMANTHA DOE, Shift Sergeant; JOHN DOE, Violating Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6117 VINCENT BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; KELVIN WASHINGTON, Sheriff; G. F. PRESSLEY, Jail Administrator; DAVID BRAYBOY, Chief Security; FNU MCCRAY, Lieutenant; SAMANTHA DOE, Shift Sergeant; JOHN DOE, Violating Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-167) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Charles John Hupfer, Jr., WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Barr v. Williamsburg County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-02-167 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 27, 2002; entered Jan. 2, 2003). 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