Filed: Feb. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7425 ROGER LEE ARBOGAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. CHEEKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2221-9-24) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Arbogast, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7425 ROGER LEE ARBOGAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. CHEEKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2221-9-24) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Arbogast, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7425 ROGER LEE ARBOGAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. CHEEKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2221-9-24) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Arbogast, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roger Lee Arbogast 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 Arbogast v. Cheeks, No. CA-03-2221-9-24 (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 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 -
