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)
14-1425•Christopher Lytes v. Christian Smith; David Wood; Brian N. Smith; John Lookabill
14-1425Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.10.2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1425
CHRISTOPHER LYTES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTIAN SMITH; DAVID WOOD; BRIAN N. SMITH; JOHN LOOKABILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cv-01672-MBS)
Submitted: October 20, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Rauch Wise, LAW OFFICE OF C. RAUCH WISE, Greenwood, South
Carolina; Robert M. Cook, II, Leesville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Joel S. Hughes, Andrew F. Lindemann, William H.
Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lytes appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lytes
v. Smith, No. 3:12-cv-01672-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2014;
entered Mar. 31, 2014). 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.