Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joseph v. Peterson, 95-7575 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7575 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7575 MARCUS A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. PETERSON; NANCY BLOOM; BILL AUSTIN, individually and in their official and professional capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2457-2-17AJ) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINS
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 95-7575



MARCUS A. JOSEPH,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

R. C. PETERSON; NANCY BLOOM; BILL AUSTIN,
individually and in their official and
professional capacities,

                                              Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-2457-2-17AJ)

Submitted:   January 11, 1996              Decided:   January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re-

lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Joseph v. Peter-
son, No. CA-95-2457-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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




                                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