Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Atkinson v. City of Spartanburg, 01-1905 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1905 Visitors: 23
Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1905 JOHN N. ATKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF SPARTANBURG; ANTHONY T. FISHER; ART D. LITTLEJOHN; SPARTANBURG CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS- SION; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, Office of Professional Standards; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, Incident Review Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1905 JOHN N. ATKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF SPARTANBURG; ANTHONY T. FISHER; ART D. LITTLEJOHN; SPARTANBURG CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS- SION; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, Office of Professional Standards; SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, Incident Review Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1179-7-BG) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John N. Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Howard Keim, Jr., Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, STURM, CLARK & KEIM, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John N. Atkinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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 Atkinson v. City of Spartanburg, No. CA-00-1179-7-BG (D.S.C. June 12, 2001). 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