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)
98-2148•Teresa A. Eggers v. Cherokee County Department of Social Services
98-2148Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit28.01.2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2148
TERESA A. EGGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
GLENN HENSLEY; REBECCA S. JEFFERIES; SANDRA
GREENE, in their individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HARVEY PEELER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-96-3886-7-13)
Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: January 28, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
* On appeal, Eggers has abandoned her state law claims and
those claims the district court found barred by Eleventh Amendment
immunity.
2
Suzanne E. Coe, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin
W. Sturm, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, STURM, CLARK & KEIM, P.A.,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Teresa A. Eggers appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 (West Supp. 1999) and South Carolina state law. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court.* See Eggers v. Cherokee County, No. CA-96-3886-7-13
(D.S.C. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the 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.