Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
09-2251•Jon J. Runge v. DR. TOM BARTON, President Greenville Technical College
09-2251Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.03.2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2251
JON J. RUNGE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DR. TOM BARTON, President Greenville Technical College;
JANIE REID, Dean of Financial Aid Greenville Technical
College; P. GEORGE BENSON, President College of Charleston;
DON GRIGGS, Director of Financial Aid of Charleston,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; MARK SANFORD, Governor of The
State of South Carolina; GARRISON WALTERS, Executive
Director South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cv-00231-GRA)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Jon J. Runge, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Michael Groves,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROOVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina;
Christopher Louis Murphy, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Jon J. Runge appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Runge v. Sanford, No. 6:08-cv-00231-GRA (Aug. 21 &
Oct. 2, 2009). 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 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.