The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1952•Norman Williams, Jr v. DONALD F. WADE, Doctor
01-1952Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 15, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1952
NORMAN WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONALD F. WADE, Doctor; THOMAS F. ALLGOOD,
JR.; JOHN D. KASSELL; JOHN R. ETHRIDGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
(CA-00-360-4-12)
Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Norman Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order that
construed his civil action as filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
Supp. 2001) and dismissed it without prejudice. 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See
Williams v. Wade, No. CA-00-360-4-12 (D.S.C. July 6, 2001). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.