Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kollyns v. Doe, 03-6332 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6332 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jun. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6332 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollins, a/k/a John Wayne Todd, a/k/a Johnnie W. Todd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, an FBI agent; WILLIAM D. CATOE; CALVIN ANTHONY; STANLEY B. BURT, JR.; CHARLES CEPAK; GEORGE CHASTINE; JEFF BENTLEY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; KENNETH CHAPPELLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anders
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6332 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollins, a/k/a John Wayne Todd, a/k/a Johnnie W. Todd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, an FBI agent; WILLIAM D. CATOE; CALVIN ANTHONY; STANLEY B. BURT, JR.; CHARLES CEPAK; GEORGE CHASTINE; JEFF BENTLEY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; KENNETH CHAPPELLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-02-672-3-17-BC) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina; Christie Newman Barrett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Kollyns’ civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kollyns v. Doe, No. CA-02- 672-3-17-BC (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 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
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