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)
10-7191•Henry Burgess v. Lynn Martin; James B. Ellisor; Jim Hodges; Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.; William Doug Catoe
10-7191Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 2, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7191
HENRY BURGESS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LYNN MARTIN; JAMES B. ELLISOR; JIM HODGES; CARROLL A.
CAMPBELL, JR.; WILLIAM DOUG CATOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cv-01247-RBH)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Steven Barry Johnson, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC,
Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Henry Burgess appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Burgess v. Martin, No.
4:09-cv-01247-RBH (D.S.C. July 14, 2010). 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.