Burgess v. Martin
This text of Burgess v. Martin (Burgess v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Burgess v. Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-martin-ca4-2010.