Filed: Jan. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2074 DAVID A. BABB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM LUNSFORD, Seizing DEA Agent, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1553-6-20AK) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2074 DAVID A. BABB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM LUNSFORD, Seizing DEA Agent, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1553-6-20AK) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2074 DAVID A. BABB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM LUNSFORD, Seizing DEA Agent, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1553-6-20AK) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Babb, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Babb appeals the district court’s order granting him partial relief in this civil action, but dismissing his claim against Defendant Lunsford. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion partially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Babb v. DEA, No. CA-97-1553-6-20AK (D.S.C. May 20, 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