Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-7608 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7608 Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 81 F.3d 150 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Lewis JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Richland County; Richard A. Harpootlian, Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit; Richland County Sheriff's Department; Union Department of Public Safety; Allen Sl
More

81 F.3d 150

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Lewis JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; Richland County; Richard A.
Harpootlian, Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit; Richland
County Sheriff's Department; Union Department of Public
Safety; Allen Sloan, Sheriff of Richland County; Jim
Palmer; Elizabeth Hancock; Beau Moore, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7608.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3009-6-3-AK)

Robert Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-3009-6-3AK (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 1995). 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

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