Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7816 KEVIN S. HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLEN SLOAN, Sheriff of Richland County; J. S. WHITE, Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1488-3-17) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7816 KEVIN S. HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLEN SLOAN, Sheriff of Richland County; J. S. WHITE, Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1488-3-17) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7816 KEVIN S. HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLEN SLOAN, Sheriff of Richland County; J. S. WHITE, Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1488-3-17) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin S. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE, MONTGOMERY, POTTS & MEDLOCK, P.C., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and various state law claims. We have reviewed the record, including a transcript of the district court's oral ruling, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henderson v. Sloan, No. CA-95-1488-3-17 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 1996). 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