Chapman v. Triplett

Fourth Circuit

Chapman v. Triplett

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2005

Docket05-6483

StatusUnpublished

This text of Chapman v. Triplett (Chapman v. Triplett) 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.

Bluebook

Chapman v. Triplett, (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6483

DAVID CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR TRIPLETT; AL CANNON, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-04-363-8-18BI)

Submitted: August 12, 2005 Decided: August 29, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, Jr., Roy Pearce Maybank, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, Hugh Willcox Buyck, BUYCK LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

David Chapman appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chapman v.

Triplett, No. CA-04-363-8-18BI (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2005). 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 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI