Carroll v. Reese
This text of Carroll v. Reese (Carroll v. Reese) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-7245
ERNEST LEE CARROLL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN REESE; ARTHUR L. THOMAS; GERALDINE STEEDLEY; THOMAS DOBSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (9:09-cv-00199-PMD)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 2, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Lee Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, MBR LAW, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Ernest Lee Carroll appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 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. Carroll
v. Reese, No. 9:09-cv-00199-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Carroll v. Reese, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-reese-ca4-2011.