Filed: Sep. 27, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1584 LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER SHERRI SIMPKINS; CLINTON POLICE DE- PARTMENT; CITY OF CLINTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3356-6-13AK) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1584 LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER SHERRI SIMPKINS; CLINTON POLICE DE- PARTMENT; CITY OF CLINTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3356-6-13AK) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1584 LIZZIE LOU SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER SHERRI SIMPKINS; CLINTON POLICE DE- PARTMENT; CITY OF CLINTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3356-6-13AK) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lizzie Lou Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lizzie Lou Simpson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting and modifying the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Simpson v. Simpkins, No. CA-99-3356-6-13AK (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2000). 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
