Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7614 ANGELO HAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NORA CHANDLER, Deputy Clerk of Court; LARRY PROPES, Clerk of Court, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02020-JMC) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7614 ANGELO HAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NORA CHANDLER, Deputy Clerk of Court; LARRY PROPES, Clerk of Court, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02020-JMC) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7614
ANGELO HAM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NORA CHANDLER, Deputy Clerk of Court; LARRY PROPES, Clerk of
Court,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:10-cv-02020-JMC)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Ham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Ham appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Ham v. Chandler, No. 6:10-cv-02020-JMC (D.S.C.
Nov. 8, 2010). 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