Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Haynes v. Allsep, 95-7899 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7899 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7899 JOHN A. HAYNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. MICHAEL ALLSEP; WOOD & LINDLEY, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law; NORBRET E. CUMMINGS, JR., Acting Solicitor; ORANGEBURG COUNTY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE; B. HARRISON BELL, Acting Solicitor; UNKNOWN INSURANCE AGENCY, Advo- cating Allsep, Bell and Cummings Professional (Personal) and Official Liability; DORCHESTER COUNTY; ORANGEBURG COUNTY; UNKNOWN PERSONS, Involved; DORCHESTER
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7899 JOHN A. HAYNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. MICHAEL ALLSEP; WOOD & LINDLEY, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law; NORBRET E. CUMMINGS, JR., Acting Solicitor; ORANGEBURG COUNTY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE; B. HARRISON BELL, Acting Solicitor; UNKNOWN INSURANCE AGENCY, Advo- cating Allsep, Bell and Cummings Professional (Personal) and Official Liability; DORCHESTER COUNTY; ORANGEBURG COUNTY; UNKNOWN PERSONS, Involved; DORCHESTER COUNTY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-1495-3-6BC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Haynes v. Allsep, No. CA-95-1495-3-6BC (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 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 3
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