Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wicks v. Carolina Telcom Inc, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower district court's denial of relief to David Bryant Wicks in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lexington County Jail and Talton Telecommunications. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The appellate court denied the appellee's motion for sanctions and affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7096

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower district court's denial of relief to David Bryant Wicks in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lexington County Jail and Talton Telecommunications. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The appellate court denied the appellee's motion for sanctions and affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Wicks v. Carolina Telcom Inc, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower district court's denial of relief to David Bryant Wicks in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lexington County Jail and Talton Telecommunications. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The appellate court denied the appellee's motion for sanctions and affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7096

    DAVID BRYANT WICKS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    MICHALE A. BOWERS,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    LEXINGTON COUNTY JAIL; TALTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    CAROLINA TELCOM, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CA-97-505-3-19BC)

    Submitted:

    February 11, 1999

    Decided:

    February 23, 1999

    Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    David Bryant Wicks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas C. R. Legare, Jr.,
    Mark Davis Cauthen, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia,
    South Carolina; Steven Todd Moon, HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY &
    GUERARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Bryant Wicks appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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 district court.*
    See Wicks v. Lexington County Jail, No. CA-97-505-3-19BC (D.S.C.
    July 2, 1998).

    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

    We also deny Appellees motion for sanctions.


    2

    You might also like