Ham v. Darlington County Sheriffs Office

Fourth Circuit

Ham v. Darlington County Sheriffs Office

478 F. App'x 767

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 14, 2012·No. No. 12-7103·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Angelo B. Ham 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. Ham v. Darlington Cnty. Sheriffs Office, No. 4:11-cv-01150-JMC, 2012 WL 2178693 (D.S.C. June 14, 2012). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Angelo B. Ham 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. Ham v. Darlington Cnty. Sheriffs Office, No. 4:11-cv-01150-JMC, 2012 WL 2178693 (D.S.C. June 14, 2012). 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.

Ham v. Darlington County Sheriffs Office, 478 F. App'x 767 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

478 F. App'x 767 (Ham v. Darlington County Sheriffs Office) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related