Filed: Apr. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1066 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAY ALICE WILLIAMS; DEPUTY PORTER; JAMES BECKETT; DIANA BECKETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1316-2) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1066 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAY ALICE WILLIAMS; DEPUTY PORTER; JAMES BECKETT; DIANA BECKETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1316-2) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1066 JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAY ALICE WILLIAMS; DEPUTY PORTER; JAMES BECKETT; DIANA BECKETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1316-2) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse R. Lance, Appellant Pro Se. William Walter Doar, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jesse R. Lance 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lance v. Williams, No. CA-02-1316-2 (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 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 -
