Filed: Mar. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7793 HERBERT SLATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN W. BLEDSOE, III, Esquire, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-21949-3-13BC) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Slater, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7793 HERBERT SLATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN W. BLEDSOE, III, Esquire, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-21949-3-13BC) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Slater, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7793 HERBERT SLATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN W. BLEDSOE, III, Esquire, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-21949-3-13BC) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Slater, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herbert Slater 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 deny Slater’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Slater v. Bledsoe, No. CA-04- 21949-3-13BC (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2004). 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 -
