Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Straws v. Metts, 07-7288 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7288 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7288 JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES R. METTS, Lexington County Sheriff’s Department; MAJOR NFN HARRIS, Lexington County Detention Center; SGT FNU TIMMERMAN, Lexington County Police Department; DET EDDIE PRESTIGIACOMO, Lexington County Sheriff’s Department; PTL A RISH, Lexington County Police Department; DET KEITH KIRSHNER, Lexington County Police Department; CPL NFN HOBBS, Lexington County Police Depart
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7288 JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES R. METTS, Lexington County Sheriff’s Department; MAJOR NFN HARRIS, Lexington County Detention Center; SGT FNU TIMMERMAN, Lexington County Police Department; DET EDDIE PRESTIGIACOMO, Lexington County Sheriff’s Department; PTL A RISH, Lexington County Police Department; DET KEITH KIRSHNER, Lexington County Police Department; CPL NFN HOBBS, Lexington County Police Department; ELIZABETH FULLWOOD, Lexington County Public Defenders Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00805-HFF) Submitted: February 27, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jabbar Jomo Straws appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice 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. Straws v. Metts, No. 4:07-cv-00805-HFF (D.S.C. July 26, 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 -
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