Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wicks v. Carolina Telcom Inc, 98-7096 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7096 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7096 DAVID BRYANT WICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MICHALE A. BOWERS, Plaintiff, versus LEXINGTON COUNTY JAIL; TALTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Defendants - Appellees, and CAROLINA TELCOM, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-505-3-19BC) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7096 DAVID BRYANT WICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MICHALE A. BOWERS, Plaintiff, versus LEXINGTON COUNTY JAIL; TALTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Defendants - Appellees, and CAROLINA TELCOM, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-505-3-19BC) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bryant Wicks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas C. R. Legare, Jr., Mark Davis Cauthen, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina; Steven Todd Moon, HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Bryant Wicks 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 magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* See Wicks v. Lexington County Jail, No. CA-97-505-3-19BC (D.S.C. July 2, 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 * We also deny Appellee’s motion for sanctions. 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