Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

91-2173 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-2173 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 06, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1446 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Errol CATOE, Individually and as Executive Director of the South Carolina Licensing Board for Contractors; Harry Kent, Individually and as Vice-Chairman of the South Carolina Licens
More

966 F.2d 1446

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. Errol CATOE, Individually and as Executive Director of
the South Carolina Licensing Board for Contractors; Harry
Kent, Individually and as Vice-Chairman of the South
Carolina Licensing Board for Contractors; Walter Hunter,
Individually and as a Board Member of the South Carolina
Licensing Board for Contractors; Gary Shelton, Individually
and as a Board Member of the South Carolina Licensing Board
for Contractors; John T. Watkins, Individually and as
Director of the Home Builders Commission of South Carolina;
Alice C. Broadwater, Individually and as Assistant Attorney
General in charge of Civil Litigation for South Carolina;
George K. Lyall; Nina Nelson Smith; Melody Renee Black,
Individually and as attorneys for Nelson, Mullins, Riley and
Scarborough, counselors and attorneys at Law; Edward
Mullins, JR., Individually and as partner and attorney for
Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough Law Firm; Nelson,
Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, Counselors and Attorneys at
Law; C. Victor Pyle, JR., Individually and as Judge for the
State of South Carolina; Robert Small, JR., Individually
and as owner of Avtex Properties, Incorporated/Avtex
Construction Company; ALAN HARDIN, Individually and as
construction manager for Avtex Properties,
Incorporated/Avtex Construction Company; James E. Knight,
JR., Individually and as attorney for the Law Offices of
James E. Knight, Jr.; The Law Offices of James E. Knight,
JR.; Jerry D. Sanders, Individually and as agent for
Maryland Casualty Company; The Maryland Casualty Company,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Michael A. PULLIAM, Individually and in his capacity as
attorney for Richardson, Plowden, Grier and Howser,
Counselors and Attorneys at law; Richardson, Plowden, Grier
And Howser, Counselors and Attorneys at Law, Defendants.

No. 91-2173.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 11, 1992
Decided: July 6, 1992

Robert Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

William Henry Davidson, II, Nauful & Ellis, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Laura Callaway Hart, Carl Belden Epps, III, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Nathaniel Heyward Clarkson, III, Charles Stuart Mauney, Gibbes & Clarkson, Greenville, South Carolina; James Warner Alford, Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, South Carolina; William Marvin Grant, Jr., Judith Ann Leatherwood, Steven A. Snyder, Grant & Leatherwood, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Robert Lee Williams appeals from the district court's order awarding judgment to the Defendants in Williams' civil rights action. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting in part, and modifying in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that Williams' claims are without arguable merit and there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Williams v. Catoe, No. CA-90-1424-OH (D.S.C. June 27, 1991). 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

*

We grant the motion of appellees James E. Knight, Jr., and the Law Offices of James E. Knight, Jr., to dismiss this appeal insofar as it concerns them

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