Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hollabaugh v. Weldon, 98-6891 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6891 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6891 DONALD L. HOLLABAUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDEN, in his individual and official capacity; JOE BLACK, in his individual and official capacity; ROY STEVENS, in his indi- vidual and official capacity; LOU J. ALLEN, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL W. MOORE, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Sou
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6891 DONALD L. HOLLABAUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDEN, in his individual and official capacity; JOE BLACK, in his individual and official capacity; ROY STEVENS, in his indi- vidual and official capacity; LOU J. ALLEN, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL W. MOORE, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-2276-4-6-BE) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Donald L. Hollabaugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Charles- ton, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald L. Hollabaugh appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hollabaugh v. Walden, No. CA-96-2276-4-6-BE (D.S.C. May 18 and June 1, 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
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