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)
99-7390•Elwaldo R. James v. City of Rock Hill
99-7390Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 3, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7390
ELWALDO R. JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF ROCK HILL; ROCK HILL POLICE DEPART-
MENT; ROBERT M. STEWARTS, Detective Sergeant,
City of Rock Hill Police Department; CLIFTON
D. RUSSELL; CLYDE C. LONG; ROBERT M. STEWART,
Chief, State Law Enforcement Division; BETTY
JOE RHEA, Mayor, City of Rock Hill; JOE B.
LANFORD; JOHN DOES, 8-15, City Council of Rock
Hill; JANE DOES, 8-15, City Council of Rock
Hill; ROCK HILL CITY COUNCIL; JAMES THICKENS,
Detective Sergeant, City of Rock Hill Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-2890-2-6AJ)
Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Elwaldo R. James, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Seegars Givens, WOODS &
GIVENS, L.L.P., Lexington, South Carolina; Terry B. Millar, Rock
Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elwaldo R. James appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and on
his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the
record, the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation to deny § 1983 relief, and the court’s opin-
ion denying the Rule 59(e) motion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
James v. City of Rock Hill, No. CA-98-2890-2-6AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 24 &
Sept. 10, 1999). We deny James’ motion to appoint counsel and dis-
pense 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.