Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vance v. Irby, 05-6522 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6522 Visitors: 34
Filed: Dec. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6522 ROBERT EARL VANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NFN IRBY, Officer; NFN RHODES, Sergeant; J. WILLIAMS, Sergeant; OFFICER MCDANIEL, Defendants - Appellees, and PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-3826-8-27) Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6522 ROBERT EARL VANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NFN IRBY, Officer; NFN RHODES, Sergeant; J. WILLIAMS, Sergeant; OFFICER MCDANIEL, Defendants - Appellees, and PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-3826-8-27) Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., Ginger Dee Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Vance 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 Vance v. Irby, No. CA-03-3826-8-27 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 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