Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. Ruiz, 96-7321 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7321 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7321 JOHN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA PICKNEY RUIZ, Hearing Officer; RUFUS E. MINCEY; JOHN I. NICHOLS; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY; L. J. ALLEN; PARKER EVATT, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-988-6-0AK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: Decem
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7321 JOHN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA PICKNEY RUIZ, Hearing Officer; RUFUS E. MINCEY; JOHN I. NICHOLS; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY; L. J. ALLEN; PARKER EVATT, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-988-6-0AK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, STUCKEY & SENN, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) 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 deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. Ruiz, No. CA-95-988-6-0AK (D.S.C. July 26, 1996). 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