Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dixon v. Horry County SC, 98-6357 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6357 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jul. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6357 DAVID E. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; JOHN T. HENRY, Horry County Sheriff; RALPH VAUGHT, Adminis- trator, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; LIEU- TENANT BOYD, J. Reuben Long Supervisory Offi- cer; KENNETH I. GRATE, Lieutenant, J. Reuben Long Detention Center Supervisory Officer; RANDY GERALD, Sergeant, J. Reuben Long Deten- tion Officer; CORPORAL MOSES, J. Reuben Long Detention Cent
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6357 DAVID E. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; JOHN T. HENRY, Horry County Sheriff; RALPH VAUGHT, Adminis- trator, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; LIEU- TENANT BOYD, J. Reuben Long Supervisory Offi- cer; KENNETH I. GRATE, Lieutenant, J. Reuben Long Detention Center Supervisory Officer; RANDY GERALD, Sergeant, J. Reuben Long Deten- tion Officer; CORPORAL MOSES, J. Reuben Long Detention Center Officer; NURSE STACKHOUSE, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; VICKIE LEWIS, Nurse, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; MRS. GRISSETT, Nurse, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; ANN ANDERSON, J. Reuben Long Detention Center; DOUGLAS FREEMAN, Horry County Adminis- trator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1463-3-BD) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David E. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dixon v. Horry County, South Carolina, No. CA-95-1463-3-BD (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 1998). We dis- pense 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