Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anderson v. City of Rock Hill, 05-1619 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1619 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1619 EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ROCK HILL; SHEAKLEY UNI SERVICE, INCORPORATED; LYN KOVEN; LINDA WORKMAN; LARRY BIGAM; JESSE FUNDERBURK; DAWN BEYERS; DAVID YOUNG; WANDA MORRIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-04-22892-0) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1619 EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ROCK HILL; SHEAKLEY UNI SERVICE, INCORPORATED; LYN KOVEN; LINDA WORKMAN; LARRY BIGAM; JESSE FUNDERBURK; DAWN BEYERS; DAVID YOUNG; WANDA MORRIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-04-22892-0) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward W. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., MALONE, THOMPSON & SUMMERS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina; David Bradley Jordan, Geoffry Mark Dunn, JORDAN LAW FIRM, P.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward W. Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to timely serve process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. City of Rock Hill, No. CA-04-22892-0 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2005). 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 -
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