Filed: May 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1437 ARTHUR EMIL LARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; CHARLES CAPE, in his capacities as Chief of the South Carolina Real Estate Commission(s) Investiga- tive Division and Staff Involved; CHARLES CAPE, Personally, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-1323-3-19BC) Su
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1437 ARTHUR EMIL LARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; CHARLES CAPE, in his capacities as Chief of the South Carolina Real Estate Commission(s) Investiga- tive Division and Staff Involved; CHARLES CAPE, Personally, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-1323-3-19BC) Sub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1437
ARTHUR EMIL LARSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; CHARLES
CAPE, in his capacities as Chief of the South
Carolina Real Estate Commission(s) Investiga-
tive Division and Staff Involved; CHARLES
CAPE, Personally,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-97-1323-3-19BC)
Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Emil Larson, Appellant Pro Se. Arrigo Paul Carotti,
MCCUTCHEON, MCCUTCHEON & BAXTER, P.A., Conway, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Larson appeals the district court's order dismissing
his civil action as barred by the statute of limitations period.
See Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
828 F.2d
211, 220 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. Larson v. South Carolina Real
Estate Comm'n, No. CA-97-1323-3-19BC (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 1998). 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