Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tessa Childress v. Charleston County Sheriff's, 13-7066 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7066 Visitors: 35
Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7066 TESSA R. R. G. C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DANA E HERRON, Inspector; INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, The Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7066 TESSA R. R. G. C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DANA E HERRON, Inspector; INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, The Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-01008-SB) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tessa R R G C Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tessa R.R.G.C. Childress appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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. Childress v. Charleston Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 2:13-cv-01008-SB (D.S.C. June 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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