Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities

Fourth Circuit

Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities

74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38851, 1996 WL 24666

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 1996·No. 95-7575·Published

Opinion

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marcus A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R.C. PETERSON; Nancy Bloom; Bill Austin, individually and
in their official and professional capacities,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7575.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 24, 1996.

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Peterson, No. CA-95-2457-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 1995). 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

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marcus A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R.C. PETERSON; Nancy Bloom; Bill Austin, individually and
in their official and professional capacities,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7575.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 24, 1996.

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Peterson, No. CA-95-2457-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 1995). 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

Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities, 74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38851, 1996 WL 24666 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

74 F.3d 1232 (Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.