Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stephney v. Lott, 06-6897 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-6897 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6897 WADE STEPHNEY, a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEON LOTT, JR., Sheriff of Richland County; J. WILLOUGHBY, Investigator for Richland County Sheriff's Department; RONALDO D. MYERS, Director of Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; HAYHURST, Fugitive Squad Officer for Richland County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants - Appellees, and UNKNOWN FUGITIVE SQUAD OFFICER, Richland County Sheriff’s Department, D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6897 WADE STEPHNEY, a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEON LOTT, JR., Sheriff of Richland County; J. WILLOUGHBY, Investigator for Richland County Sheriff's Department; RONALDO D. MYERS, Director of Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; HAYHURST, Fugitive Squad Officer for Richland County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants - Appellees, and UNKNOWN FUGITIVE SQUAD OFFICER, Richland County Sheriff’s Department, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:05-cv-02740-MBS) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wade Stephney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Wade Stephney 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Stephney v. Lott, No. 8:05-cv-02740-MBS (D.S.C. May 9, 2006). 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 - 3 -
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