Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James McDowell v. Carol Mitchell-Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to James Stephon McDowell on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in the lower court's July 20, 2015 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7357

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to James Stephon McDowell on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in the lower court's July 20, 2015 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    James McDowell v. Carol Mitchell-Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to James Stephon McDowell on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in the lower court's July 20, 2015 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and argument would not aid in the decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7357

    JAMES STEPHON MCDOWELL, a/k/a James S. McDowell,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CAROL E. MITCHELL-HAMILTON; JOHN B. TOMARCHIO; TIANNA R.
    RANDOLPH; ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III; T. MONTGOMERY; BRYAN
    STERLING; EVELYN BARBER, Head Food Supervisor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Bruce H. Hendricks, District
    Judge. (9:14-cv-02132-BHH)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 20, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Stephon McDowell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    James E. Parham, Jr.,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Stephon McDowell appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2012)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    McDowell

    v.

    Mitchell-Hamilton,

    July 20, 2015).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    No.

    have

    9:14-cv-02132-BHH

    See

    (D.S.C.

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like