Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Quinones v. Clark, 97-7257 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7257 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7257 LUIS G. QUINONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT CLARK; SERGEANT DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-853-21BD) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7257 LUIS G. QUINONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT CLARK; SERGEANT DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-853-21BD) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis G. Quinones, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the Respondents' motion for judgment as a matter of law and denying relief on Appellant's 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. On appeal, Appellant has not challenged the basis of the district court's judgment on the merits. His challenges to the procedures at trial, and his suggestion that the district judge should have been re- cused, are meritless. 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. Quinones v. Clark, No. CA-96-853-21BD (D.S.C. Sept. 3, 1997). 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