Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moore v. Metts, 05-6008 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6008 Visitors: 59
Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6008 DEWAYNE E. MOORE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES METTS, Sheriff; OSCAR MCINTOSH, Detective, Defendants - Appellees, and MARC H. WESTBROOK, Administrative; SCOTT WHITTLE, Magistrate; WILLIAM SHOCKLEY, Magistrate; DONALD V. MYERS, Solicitor; DAVID SHAWN GRAHAM, Assistant Solicitor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Dist
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6008 DEWAYNE E. MOORE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES METTS, Sheriff; OSCAR MCINTOSH, Detective, Defendants - Appellees, and MARC H. WESTBROOK, Administrative; SCOTT WHITTLE, Magistrate; WILLIAM SHOCKLEY, Magistrate; DONALD V. MYERS, Solicitor; DAVID SHAWN GRAHAM, Assistant Solicitor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2736-3-24BD) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dewayne E. Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Barton Jon Vincent, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dewayne E. Moore, Sr., 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 Moore v. Metts, No. CA-03-2736-3-24BD (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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