Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crawford v. Hill, 99-1547 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1547 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1547 ELIZABETH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. D. HILL, in his individual and official capacity; E. EAGLE, in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and FREDERICK MARSHALL, individually, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-404-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1547 ELIZABETH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. D. HILL, in his individual and official capacity; E. EAGLE, in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and FREDERICK MARSHALL, individually, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-404-2) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Darley Annand, George Kenneth Robertson, SHUMAN, ANNAND, BAILEY, WYANT & EARLES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elizabeth Crawford appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in Crawford’s civil rights case, and denying her motion for leave to amend her 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 Crawford v. Hill, No. CA-98-404-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 1999). 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