Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nelson v. PPCAA, 19-2163 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-2163 Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2121 EDWARD K. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAROLE & PROBATION COMPACT ADMINISTRATORS' ASSOCIATION; ANN HYDE, State of South Carolina PPCAA Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-670-3-13BD) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2121 EDWARD K. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAROLE & PROBATION COMPACT ADMINISTRATORS' ASSOCIATION; ANN HYDE, State of South Carolina PPCAA Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-670-3-13BD) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward K. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lynn Masters, MASTERS, MULLINS & ARRINGTON, Louisville, Kentucky; Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward K. Nelson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Parole & Probation Compact Administrators’ Ass’n, No. CA- 03-670-3-13BD (D.S.C. filed Aug. 19, 2003 & entered Aug. 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. DISMISSED - 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