Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2145 DONALD J. STRABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1665-6-13AK) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald J. Strable,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2145 DONALD J. STRABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1665-6-13AK) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald J. Strable, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2145 DONALD J. STRABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1665-6-13AK) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald J. Strable, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald J. Strable appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Strable v. United States, No. CA-98-1665-6-13AK (D.S.C. July 10, 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
