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)
01-6444•Kevin L. Choice v. Cozette Jacobs
01-6444Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 13, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6444
KEVIN L. CHOICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COZETTE JACOBS; SPRINT TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-00-1514-0-18BC)
Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 13, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin L. Choice, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, TERRY B.
MILLAR, L.L.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina; Brant Mitchell Laue,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, L.L.P., Kansas City, Missouri, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin L. Choice, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
on the reasoning of the district court accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge. See Choice v. Jacobs, No. CA-00-1514-0-
18BC (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.