Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Runge v. Barton, 09-2251 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2251 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2251 JON J. RUNGE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DR. TOM BARTON, President Greenville Technical College; JANIE REID, Dean of Financial Aid Greenville Technical College; P. GEORGE BENSON, President College of Charleston; DON GRIGGS, Director of Financial Aid of Charleston, Defendants – Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; MARK SANFORD, Governor of The State of South Carolina; GARRISON WALTERS, Executive Director South Caroli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2251 JON J. RUNGE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DR. TOM BARTON, President Greenville Technical College; JANIE REID, Dean of Financial Aid Greenville Technical College; P. GEORGE BENSON, President College of Charleston; DON GRIGGS, Director of Financial Aid of Charleston, Defendants – Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; MARK SANFORD, Governor of The State of South Carolina; GARRISON WALTERS, Executive Director South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-00231-GRA) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jon J. Runge, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Michael Groves, CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROOVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Christopher Louis Murphy, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jon J. Runge appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Runge v. Sanford, No. 6:08-cv-00231-GRA (Aug. 21 & Oct. 2, 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 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