Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nathan Groves v. City of Darlington Sc, 11-1298 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1298 Visitors: 49
Filed: Dec. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1298 NATHAN ANDREW GROVES; JOEL STROUD, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. DARLINGTON SOUTH CAROLINA, THE CITY OF, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00402-TLW) Submitted: November 9, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1298 NATHAN ANDREW GROVES; JOEL STROUD, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. DARLINGTON SOUTH CAROLINA, THE CITY OF, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00402-TLW) Submitted: November 9, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel F. Stroud, JOEL F. STROUD, Chesterfield, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The Appellants, Nathan Andrew Groves and Joel Flake Stroud, appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee and rendering the Appellee’s pending motions moot, and the magistrate judge’s order denying the Appellants’ motion to transfer the case to another division of the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders. We also deny the Appellants’ motion to expedite the decision as moot. 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
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