Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Moore, 97-6259 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6259 Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6259 ALBERT JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; GEORGE N. MARTIN, III; WILLIAM DAVIS; S. HUNTER RENTZ, Doctor; MARIA BLANDSHAW; DEBORAH T. SMITH; ROSE MARY MURPHY; JAMES BRYAN; JOHN PATE, JR., Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-3101-2-11AJ) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6259 ALBERT JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; GEORGE N. MARTIN, III; WILLIAM DAVIS; S. HUNTER RENTZ, Doctor; MARIA BLANDSHAW; DEBORAH T. SMITH; ROSE MARY MURPHY; JAMES BRYAN; JOHN PATE, JR., Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-3101-2-11AJ) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina; William Llewellyn Pope, Leroy Free Laney, POPE & RODGERS, Columbia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Moore, No. CA-96-3101-2-11AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 23, 1997). 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