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)
10-1076•Patricia T. Patterson v. David Benson; Luther Elrod; Thomas Pope; Jack Leader; Harold Staley
10-1076Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 7, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1076
PATRICIA T. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DAVID BENSON; LUTHER ELROD; THOMAS POPE; JACK LEADER; HAROLD
STALEY,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (0:09-cv-02478-MBS)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Arlen Cotter,
Jr., Whitney Allison Smith, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON,
PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Patterson v. Benson, No. 0:09-cv-02478-MBS (D.S.C.
Dec. 18, 2009). Additionally, we deny Patterson’s motion for
default judgment. 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.