Filed: Jun. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6239 ISIAH JAMES, JR.; MAURICE MACK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus C. KELLY JACKSON, Solicitor’s Office of the Third Judicial Circuit in his collective individual and/or official capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-3981-13BD) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6239 ISIAH JAMES, JR.; MAURICE MACK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus C. KELLY JACKSON, Solicitor’s Office of the Third Judicial Circuit in his collective individual and/or official capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-3981-13BD) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KIN..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6239 ISIAH JAMES, JR.; MAURICE MACK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus C. KELLY JACKSON, Solicitor’s Office of the Third Judicial Circuit in his collective individual and/or official capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-3981-13BD) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isiah James, Jr., Maurice Mack, Appellants Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, L.L.C., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Isiah James and Maurice Mack appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See James v. Jackson, No. CA-01-3981-13BD (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2003). 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