Filed: May 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6106 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREG REED, Deputy; STEVE PRUITT; RICK THOMPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2278-2-21AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6106 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREG REED, Deputy; STEVE PRUITT; RICK THOMPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2278-2-21AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6106 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREG REED, Deputy; STEVE PRUITT; RICK THOMPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2278-2-21AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Edward Rochester, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief without prejudice 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. Rochester v. Reed, No. CA-95-2278-2-21AJ (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 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
