Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reliford v. McCarthy, 97-7303 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7303 Visitors: 30
Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7303 EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LONNIE MCCARTHY; MEDICAL STAFF AT AIKEN COUNTY JAIL; AIKEN COUNTY JAIL OF CORRECTION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2797-3-17) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7303 EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LONNIE MCCARTHY; MEDICAL STAFF AT AIKEN COUNTY JAIL; AIKEN COUNTY JAIL OF CORRECTION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2797-3-17) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Hutto Derrick, LIDE, MONTGOMERY & POTTS, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ephrain Reliford, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment after a jury trial dismissing the action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and related orders. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and the opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, in part, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reliford v. McCarthy, No. CA-95-2797-3-17 (D.S.C. Aug. 13, Jul. 29, May 29, & Feb. 18, 1997). With respect to the trial, we also find no reversible error. 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. We also deny Reliford’s motions for production of documents and judicial notice. 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