Squirewell v. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing & Regulation

Fourth Circuit

Squirewell v. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing & Regulation

474 F. App'x 147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 11, 2012

DocketNo. 11-2251

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 147 (Squirewell v. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing & Regulation) 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

Squirewell v. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing & Regulation, 474 F. App'x 147 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Squirewell appeals the district court’s order granting the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation summary judgment on his claims of procedural and substantive due process, defamation, and malicious interference with contractual relations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirewell v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, No. 3:10-cv-01902-JFA, 2011 WL 4808260 (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2011). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael Squirewell appeals the district court’s order granting the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation summary judgment on his claims of procedural and substantive due process, defamation, and malicious interference with contractual relations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirewell v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, No. 3:10-cv-01902-JFA, 2011 WL 4808260 (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2011). 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)

474 F. App'x 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/squirewell-v-south-carolina-department-of-labor-licensing-regulation-ca4-2012.