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)
13-7066•Tessa R. R. G. C. Childress, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress v. Charleston County Sheriff’s Office
13-7066Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 27, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7066
TESSA R. R. G. C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne
Childress,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DANA E HERRON,
Inspector; INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL
STANDARDS, The Charleston County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cv-01008-SB)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tessa R R G C Childress, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tessa R.R.G.C. Childress 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. Childress v. Charleston Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No.
2:13-cv-01008-SB (D.S.C. June 26, 2013). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.