Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thompson v. Guilford Cnty, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Rodney Thompson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his civil rights complaint against various law enforcement agencies and officials. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Thompson's motion for appointment of counsel and request for oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-05-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7297

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Thompson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his civil rights complaint against various law enforcement agencies and officials. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Thompson's motion for appointment of counsel and request for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views2 pages

    Thompson v. Guilford Cnty, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Thompson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his civil rights complaint against various law enforcement agencies and officials. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Thompson's motion for appointment of counsel and request for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7297

    RODNEY EUGENE THOMPSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH
    G. BURDZY, Deputy Sheriff; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
    VEHICLES; WINSTON-SALEM CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; D. G. PROCTOR, Deputy Sheriff; FORSYTH
    COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-98-253-1)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2000

    Decided:

    May 2, 2000

    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Rodney Eugene Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan D. Moore, COUNTY
    ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; Christine Marion
    Ryan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
    North Carolina; Gusti Wiesenfeld Frankel, Allan R. Gitter, WOMBLE,
    CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney Eugene Thompson appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis-

    trict court.

    See Thompson v. Guilford County Sheriffs Dept, No.

    CA-98-253-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1999).

    Thompsons motion to have

    this court review the original record is granted.

    We deny Thomp-

    sons motion for the appointment of counsel and deny the motion for
    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

    You might also like