Filed: Jan. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2125 CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Claimant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-363-1-6BD) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2125 CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Claimant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-363-1-6BD) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2125 CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Claimant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-363-1-6BD) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his civil complaint and denying his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. United States, No. CA-94-363-1-6BD (D.S.C. Jun. 21, 1994 & Aug. 16, 1994). 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
