Michael J. Cline v. Thomas F. Lesesne L.J. Allen Parker Evatt Tyrone Suber South Carolina Department of Corrections

72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39533, 1995 WL 747355
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 1995
Docket95-6654
StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 126 (Michael J. Cline v. Thomas F. Lesesne L.J. Allen Parker Evatt Tyrone Suber South Carolina Department of Corrections) 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
Michael J. Cline v. Thomas F. Lesesne L.J. Allen Parker Evatt Tyrone Suber South Carolina Department of Corrections, 72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39533, 1995 WL 747355 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

72 F.3d 126
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael J. CLINE, Plaintiff--Appellee,
v.
Thomas F. LESESNE; L.J. Allen; Parker Evatt; Tyrone
Suber; South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendants--Appellants.

No. 95-6654.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1995.
Decided Dec. 15, 1995.

L. Hunter Limbaugh, Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK, BAKER & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellants.

Michael J. Cline, Appellee Pro Se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-3492-19AJ, CA-92-726-19AJ)

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the magistrate judge's order assessing jury costs against them.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cline v. Lesesne, Nos. CA-91-3492-19AJ; CA-92-726-19AJ (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1995). We deny Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. 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

*

The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(c) (West 1993)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39533, 1995 WL 747355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-j-cline-v-thomas-f-lesesne-lj-allen-parker-ca4-1995.