Filed: Nov. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7126 TERRANCE LAMAR HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TONY MIDDLETON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CHIEF OF POLICE; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-1952-4-23BH) Submitted: October 10, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7126 TERRANCE LAMAR HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TONY MIDDLETON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CHIEF OF POLICE; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-1952-4-23BH) Submitted: October 10, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WID..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7126 TERRANCE LAMAR HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TONY MIDDLETON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CHIEF OF POLICE; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-1952-4-23BH) Submitted: October 10, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Lamar Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrance Lamar Hamilton appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hamilton v. Middleton, No. CA-02-1952-4-23BH (D.S.C. June 20, 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