Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

David Garner v. The Supreme Court of US, 12-6890 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-6890 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jul. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6890 DAVID LEE GARNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF BOSTON MA; THE SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA; FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, SR.; FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, JR.; VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; FORMER PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY; U.S. SECRETARY OF STAT
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6890 DAVID LEE GARNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF BOSTON MA; THE SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA; FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, SR.; FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, JR.; VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; FORMER PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY; U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE HILARY CLINTON; U.S. SPEAKER OF HOUSE NANCY PELOSKI; U.S. CHIEF OF STAFF RAHM EMANUEL; SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES; R. MILLER, JR.; J. SHERIFF; S. ARGENSTA; R. HAMILTON; M. LONGENBURGER; C. TALLENT; OFC B. HARRISON, Defendants – Appellees, and AFFILIATES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:11-cv-02702-TLW) Submitted: July 13, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Lee Garner appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garner v. Supreme Ct., No. 3:11-cv-02702-TLW (D.S.C. May 2, 2012). 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