Richardson v. Swanson Services

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 2005
Docket05-6704
StatusUnpublished

This text of Richardson v. Swanson Services (Richardson v. Swanson Services) 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
Richardson v. Swanson Services, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6704

CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SWANSON SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

PHILLIP THOMPSON, Sheriff of Horry County in his official and individual capacity; MARK SANFORD, Governor of South Carolina; JIM MCCLAIN, Director of Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; GWENDOLYN A. BRIGHT, Director of Parole Board Support Services,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-2426-RBH)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 27, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Curtis Dale Richardson 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 Richardson v.

Swanson Services, No. CA-03-2426-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 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

- 3 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richardson v. Swanson Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-swanson-services-ca4-2005.