Filed: Jul. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1440 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAMELA T. ELLIOTT, State Farm; LEVON GRAVES; MAGISTRATE COX; THOMAS A. RUSSO; DIANE SCOTT; JAMES SALEEBY; SHERRY RHODES; J. J. ROBERTS, Trooper; MICHAEL G. NETTLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00619-RBH) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1440 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAMELA T. ELLIOTT, State Farm; LEVON GRAVES; MAGISTRATE COX; THOMAS A. RUSSO; DIANE SCOTT; JAMES SALEEBY; SHERRY RHODES; J. J. ROBERTS, Trooper; MICHAEL G. NETTLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00619-RBH) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1440 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAMELA T. ELLIOTT, State Farm; LEVON GRAVES; MAGISTRATE COX; THOMAS A. RUSSO; DIANE SCOTT; JAMES SALEEBY; SHERRY RHODES; J. J. ROBERTS, Trooper; MICHAEL G. NETTLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00619-RBH) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David J. Washington 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. See Washington v. Elliott, No. 4:07-cv-00619-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2007). 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 -
