Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Zurla v. Beatty, 95-2726 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2726 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2726 ROBERT F. ZURLA, legally deaf person, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERNEST BEATTY, individually and as an officer with the Horry County Police Department; AL FANSHAW; JOHN MENTION; CHERYLL M. WATSON, caseworker with the Horry County Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees, and HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; CITY OF CONWAY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2726 ROBERT F. ZURLA, legally deaf person, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERNEST BEATTY, individually and as an officer with the Horry County Police Department; AL FANSHAW; JOHN MENTION; CHERYLL M. WATSON, caseworker with the Horry County Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees, and HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; CITY OF CONWAY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1374-4-21JI) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert F. Zurla, Appellant Pro Se. James Wofford Peterson, Jr., CLARK & JOHNSON, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Zurla v. Beatty, No. CA-93-1374-4-21JI (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 1995). 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