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)
12-1702•John G. Singletary, Jr.; Carla C. Singletary v. City of North Charleston
12-1702Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 1, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1702
JOHN G. SINGLETARY, JR.; CARLA C. SINGLETARY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING
DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT; R. KEITH
SUMMEY, City of North Charleston Mayor; DARBIS BRIGGMAN,
City of North Charleston Chief Building Official; WILLIAM B.
GORE, Zoning Director; RICK WILLIAMS, Building Inspector;
MARY COHEN, Zoning Inspector; ADRIENNE WILLIAMS, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals; DONALD SCHAEFFER, ZBA Vice Chairman
and May 5, 2009 Acting ZBA Chair,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-01612-RMG)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Singletary, Jr. and Carla C. Singletary, Appellants Pro
Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John G. Singletary, Jr., and Carla C. Singletary
appeal from the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in
their civil action arising out of the denial of their request
for a zoning variance. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Singletary v. North Charleston, No.
2:09-cv-01612-RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2012; May 17, 2012). 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.