Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6063 FRANKLIN HEWITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FENDER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-667-0-19) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Hewitt, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6063 FRANKLIN HEWITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FENDER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-667-0-19) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Hewitt, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6063 FRANKLIN HEWITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FENDER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-667-0-19) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Hewitt, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Hewitt v. Fender, No. CA-95-667-0-19 (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
