Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jihad v. Jackson, 99-6409 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6409 Visitors: 31
Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6409 TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VAUGHN JACKSON; ANNIE ASKINS; DOCTOR BOULWARE; LAURA BESSINGER; THOMAS MCCANTS; WILLIAM D. CATOE, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-3852-2-22AJ) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6409 TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VAUGHN JACKSON; ANNIE ASKINS; DOCTOR BOULWARE; LAURA BESSINGER; THOMAS MCCANTS; WILLIAM D. CATOE, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-3852-2-22AJ) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jihad v. Jackson, No. CA-97-3852-2-22AJ (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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