Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Qadir, Muhammad v. State of SC, 98-1649 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1649 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 11, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1649 MUHAMMAD WALIYULLAH KARIM ABDUL QADIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CARROLL CAMPBELL, former Governor; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, former Attorney General; DAVID BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney Gen- eral of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1649 MUHAMMAD WALIYULLAH KARIM ABDUL QADIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CARROLL CAMPBELL, former Governor; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, former Attorney General; DAVID BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney Gen- eral of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-401-3-19BC) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Muhammad Waliyullah Karim Abdul Qadir, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have re- viewed 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. Qadir v. South Carolina, No. CA-98-401-3-19BC (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 1998). 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