Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Burnside v. Kinlaw, 01-6784 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6784 Visitors: 24
Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6784 ANTHONY BERNARD BURNSIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN L. KINLAW, Superintendent Greenwood School District #50; GERALD BROOKS, Chief of Police Greenwood Police Department; HUGH BUTLER, Captain, Greenwood Police Department, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6784 ANTHONY BERNARD BURNSIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN L. KINLAW, Superintendent Greenwood School District #50; GERALD BROOKS, Chief of Police Greenwood Police Department; HUGH BUTLER, Captain, Greenwood Police Department, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1175-8-20AK) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Bernard Burnside, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James Dean Jolly, Jr., LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, L.L.P., Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Bernard Burnside appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in his action alleging due process violations and defamation of character. Burnside also appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 59 motions for amendment and reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burnside v. Kinlaw, No. CA-00-1175-8-20AK (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 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