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)
01-7255•Charles Oliver Hemphill v. Anthony Farran
01-7255Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 12, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7255
CHARLES OLIVER HEMPHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANTHONY FARRAN; ANDREW FREDERICK; GERALDINE
MIRO; MICHAEL W. MOORE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-815-9-13-RB)
Submitted: October 19, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Oliver Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones,
BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Oliver Hemphill appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) com-
plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Hemphill v. Farran, No. CA-99-815-9-13-RB (D.S.C.
June 15, 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.