Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Valentine v. Dodd, 07-7178 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7178 Visitors: 34
Filed: Mar. 05, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7178 RANDY L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TINA DODD, Sued in her individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:06-cv-01617-HMH) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 5, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rand
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7178 RANDY L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TINA DODD, Sued in her individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:06-cv-01617-HMH) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 5, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Heyward Clarkson, III, Edward Grainger Smith, Amy Miller Snyder, CLARKSON, WALSH, RHENEY & TERRELL, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, Anne Ross Culbreath, 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy L. Valentine appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion to amend, denying his motion for default judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, and dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Valentine v. Dodd, No. 4:06-cv-01617-HMH (D.S.C. June 11, 2007 & July 17, 2007). 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