Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Timpson v. Dreher, 96-6248 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6248 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6248 JEFFERY TIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH DREHER, in his individual, official and professional capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2287-6-3AK) Submitted: August 20, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6248 JEFFERY TIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH DREHER, in his individual, official and professional capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2287-6-3AK) Submitted: August 20, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffery Timpson, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alexandria Skinner, Elizabeth A. Holderman, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Timpson v. Dreher, No. CA-95-2287-6-3AK (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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