Filed: Oct. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6581 JULIUS S. BAKER, SR., Reverend, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. J. GLOVER, Police Officer of the City of Columbia; NFN AUSTIN, Chief of Police; JAMES MCCAULLEY, Director of the Richland County Detention Center, Defendants- Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-825-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Dec
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6581 JULIUS S. BAKER, SR., Reverend, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. J. GLOVER, Police Officer of the City of Columbia; NFN AUSTIN, Chief of Police; JAMES MCCAULLEY, Director of the Richland County Detention Center, Defendants- Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-825-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Deci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6581 JULIUS S. BAKER, SR., Reverend, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. J. GLOVER, Police Officer of the City of Columbia; NFN AUSTIN, Chief of Police; JAMES MCCAULLEY, Director of the Richland County Detention Center, Defendants- Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-825-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius S. Baker, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Julius S. Baker, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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. Baker v. Glover, No. CA-98-825-3-17BC (D.S.C. April 14, 1998). We deny Baker’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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