Filed: Aug. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6705 CHARLES RAY CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOE MITCHELL, Sheriff of the York County Sheriff’s Department; JAMES TEDDY, Lieutenant; BILLY DONAHUE, Correctional Officer; R. HILL, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr, District Judge. (CA-95-2898-6-20) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: Augu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6705 CHARLES RAY CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOE MITCHELL, Sheriff of the York County Sheriff’s Department; JAMES TEDDY, Lieutenant; BILLY DONAHUE, Correctional Officer; R. HILL, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr, District Judge. (CA-95-2898-6-20) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: Augus..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6705 CHARLES RAY CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOE MITCHELL, Sheriff of the York County Sheriff’s Department; JAMES TEDDY, Lieutenant; BILLY DONAHUE, Correctional Officer; R. HILL, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr, District Judge. (CA-95-2898-6-20) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Ray Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray, II, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Ray Carter appeals the district court’s order denying Carter’s motion to reopen this action, in which a jury verdict was returned in 1996. Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -
