Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Alexander v. Doe, 98-7233 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7233 Visitors: 37
Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7233 JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Republic Tobacco Company; JOHN DOE, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2786-6-20) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7233 JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Republic Tobacco Company; JOHN DOE, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2786-6-20) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. William Alexander Coates, LOVE, THORNTON, ARNOLD & THOMASON, Greenville, South Caro- lina; Lewis Walter Tollison, III, Rivers Samuel Stilwell, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Douglas Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Alexander v. Doe, No. CA-97-2786-6-20 (D.S.C. July 28, 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