Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hines v. Spartanburg County Dept Social Services, 09-1320 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1320 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1320 WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; ALICE SCHAAF, Human Service Specialist; TIFFANY BLAND; DINA BRAZIL; JEAN BRADLEY; IRENE HOLMAN; B.J. COOK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-03375-GRA) Submit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1320 WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; ALICE SCHAAF, Human Service Specialist; TIFFANY BLAND; DINA BRAZIL; JEAN BRADLEY; IRENE HOLMAN; B.J. COOK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-03375-GRA) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Junior Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Horner Colvin, RONALD H. COLVIN LAW OFFICE, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Junior Hines, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action, which alleged that the Defendants negligently cared for his daughter while she was in the care and custody of the Department of Social Services. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hines v. Spartanburg County Dep’t of Social Servs., No. 7:07-cv-03375-GRA (D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2009). 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