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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7575 MARCUS A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. PETERSON; NANCY BLOOM; BILL AUSTIN,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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7575 MARCUS A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. PETERSON; NANCY BLOOM; BILL AUSTIN,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 WILKINSO..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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