Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rivers v. Campbell, 05-7030 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7030 Visitors: 38
Filed: Dec. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7030 LEE THOMAS RIVERS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN CAMPBELL, Sheriff, Darlington County Sheriff Department; CALVIN JACKSON, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department; L. C. BRADDOCK, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department; J. C. MCLEOD, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7030 LEE THOMAS RIVERS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN CAMPBELL, Sheriff, Darlington County Sheriff Department; CALVIN JACKSON, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department; L. C. BRADDOCK, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department; J. C. MCLEOD, Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-708-3) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Thomas Rivers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lee Thomas Rivers, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rivers v. Campbell, No. CA-05-708-3 (D.S.C. June 15, 2005). We deny Appellant’s request to substitute counsel. 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