Singletary v. City of North Charleston

Fourth Circuit

Singletary v. City of North Charleston

479 F. App'x 456

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1702

StatusPublished

This text of 479 F. App'x 456 (Singletary v. City of North Charleston) 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

Singletary v. City of North Charleston, 479 F. App'x 456 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John G. Singletary, Jr., and Carla C. Singletary appeal from the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in their civil action arising out of the denial of their request for a zoning variance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Singletary v. North Charleston, No. 2:09-cv-01612-RMG, 2012 WL . 1309183 (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2012; May 17, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

John G. Singletary, Jr., and Carla C. Singletary appeal from the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in their civil action arising out of the denial of their request for a zoning variance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Singletary v. North Charleston, No. 2:09-cv-01612-RMG, 2012 WL . 1309183 (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2012; May 17, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 F. App'x 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singletary-v-city-of-north-charleston-ca4-2012.