Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Squirewell v. South Carolina Dep't of Labor, 11-2251 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2251 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2251 MICHAEL SQUIREWELL, a/k/a Squirewell’s Builders, Inc., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING AND REGULATION; STANLEY BOWEN, in their individual capacities; CHARLES IDO, in their individual capacities; STEPHEN DEER, in their individual capacities; JERRY MERRITT, in their individual capacities, Defendants – Appellees, and JOSEPH CONNELL, in their individual capacities, Defendant. Appeal f
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2251 MICHAEL SQUIREWELL, a/k/a Squirewell’s Builders, Inc., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING AND REGULATION; STANLEY BOWEN, in their individual capacities; CHARLES IDO, in their individual capacities; STEPHEN DEER, in their individual capacities; JERRY MERRITT, in their individual capacities, Defendants – Appellees, and JOSEPH CONNELL, in their individual capacities, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cv-01902-JFA) Submitted: June 5, 2012 Decided: July 11, 2012 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Smith, Jr., JAMES E. SMITH, JR., P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Lake E. Summers, Katherine Phillips, MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Squirewell appeals the district court’s order granting the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation summary judgment on his claims of procedural and substantive due process, defamation, and malicious interference with contractual relations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirewell v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, No. 3:10-cv-01902-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2011). 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 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