Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1634 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WONDERLYN BELL; G. TURNER PERROW; K. DOUGLAS THORNTON; BENJAMIN H. CULBERTSON; JACK M. SCOVILLE, JR.; DAVID H. MARING; FRED H. MOORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1984-2-8BD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1634 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WONDERLYN BELL; G. TURNER PERROW; K. DOUGLAS THORNTON; BENJAMIN H. CULBERTSON; JACK M. SCOVILLE, JR.; DAVID H. MARING; FRED H. MOORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1984-2-8BD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1634 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WONDERLYN BELL; G. TURNER PERROW; K. DOUGLAS THORNTON; BENJAMIN H. CULBERTSON; JACK M. SCOVILLE, JR.; DAVID H. MARING; FRED H. MOORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1984-2-8BD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse R. Lance, Appellant Pro Se. K. Douglas Thornton, THORNTON LAW FIRM, Georgetown, South Carolina; William Walter Doar, Jr., MCNAIR & SANFORD, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees; G. Turner Perrow, Fred H. Moore, Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Lance v. Bell, No. CA-96-1984-2-8BD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 1997). We deny Perrow's motion for summary disposition. 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