Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

King Grant-Davis v. Bd of Trustees of Charleston, 17-2084 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2084 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2084 KING GRANT-DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY; CHARLESTON, COUNTY OF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-02676-PMD) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2084 KING GRANT-DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY; CHARLESTON, COUNTY OF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-02676-PMD) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. King Grant-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Charleston, South Carolina, Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: King Grant-Davis appeals the district court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in Grant-Davis’ civil action in favor of the Board of Trustees of Charleston County Public Library and Charleston County. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant-Davis v. Bd. of Trs. of Charleston Cty. Pub. Library, No. 2:15-cv-02676-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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