Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ross v. USC, 00-1793 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1793 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1793 ALLISON ALPHONSO ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GENE L. LUNA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-984-3-17BD) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1793 ALLISON ALPHONSO ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GENE L. LUNA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-984-3-17BD) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allison Alphonso Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Pharr Pearson, C. Frederick W. Manning, II, ELLZEY & BROOKS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Allison Alphonso Ross appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no revers- ible error.* Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Ross v. University of South Carolina, No. CA-99-984-3-17BD (D.S.C. June 2, 2000). 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 * Ross contends the district court misconstrued a statement by him when it rejected his First Amendment Claim. Even if this assertion is correct, the remaining evidence relied upon by the district court adequately supports its judgment. 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