Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Julian Owens v. University of South Carolina, 19-1183 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1183 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1183 JULIAN D. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HARRIS PASTIDES; MICHAEL AMIRIDIS; LACY FORD; MURRAY MITCHELL; LILLIAN SMITH; KEN WATSON; ED FROGILLO; HEATHER BRANDT; KATRIN WASLSEMANN; JIM THRASHER; RUTH SAUNDERS; G. TOM CHANDLER; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS; SAMANTHA SHOFAR; DAVID HENSEL; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1183 JULIAN D. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HARRIS PASTIDES; MICHAEL AMIRIDIS; LACY FORD; MURRAY MITCHELL; LILLIAN SMITH; KEN WATSON; ED FROGILLO; HEATHER BRANDT; KATRIN WASLSEMANN; JIM THRASHER; RUTH SAUNDERS; G. TOM CHANDLER; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS; SAMANTHA SHOFAR; DAVID HENSEL; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION; COUNCIL OF EDUCATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH; CHERYL ADDY; SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE RESERVE FUND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00547-MGL) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian D. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Ian Silverberg, HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Julian D. Owens appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Univ. of S.C., No. 3:18-cv-00547-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2019). We deny Appellees’ motion to strike Owens’ supplement. 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 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