Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Tanner, 08-8103 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8103 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8103 THOMAS LOUIS DAVIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ANGELA MCCALL TANNER; KIMBERLY SMITH, Ex Solicitor; MCDUFFEY STONE, III, Head Solicitor; ALEXANDER ROBINSON, Solicitor; LARRY WEIDNER, Private Attorney; PERRY M. BUCKNER, Judge; CARMEN T. MULLEN; JAMES E. LOCKEMY; HOWARD P. KING, Judge; J. ERNEST KINARD, Judge; O. G. CHASE, Magistrate Judge; NANCY SADLER, Magistrate Judge; BRYANT BEARED, Head Chief Detective; LARRY D. EHLER
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8103 THOMAS LOUIS DAVIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ANGELA MCCALL TANNER; KIMBERLY SMITH, Ex Solicitor; MCDUFFEY STONE, III, Head Solicitor; ALEXANDER ROBINSON, Solicitor; LARRY WEIDNER, Private Attorney; PERRY M. BUCKNER, Judge; CARMEN T. MULLEN; JAMES E. LOCKEMY; HOWARD P. KING, Judge; J. ERNEST KINARD, Judge; O. G. CHASE, Magistrate Judge; NANCY SADLER, Magistrate Judge; BRYANT BEARED, Head Chief Detective; LARRY D. EHLER; MICHAEL R. SEWARD, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:08-cv-02248-GRA) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Louis Davis appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying reconsideration thereof. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Tanner, No. 9:08-cv- 02248-GRA (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2008). 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