Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Lance v. Cagle, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Jesse R. Lance on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling denying Lance relief for the reasons stated in its order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Lance v. Cagle, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Jesse R. Lance on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling denying Lance relief for the reasons stated in its order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-10-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1503

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Jesse R. Lance on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling denying Lance relief for the reasons stated in its order.

    Copyright:

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

    Lance v. Cagle, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Jesse R. Lance on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling denying Lance relief for the reasons stated in its order.

    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. 07-1503

    JESSE R. LANCE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JIMMY WILSON CAGLE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (2:07-cv-00726-SB)

    Submitted:

    October 11, 2007

    Decided:

    October 15, 2007

    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jesse R. Lance, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse

    R.

    Lance

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying


    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1981 (2000) complaint.
    the record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed

    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Lance v. Cagle, No.

    2:07-cv-00726-SB (D.S.C. filed Apr. 23, 2007 & entered Apr. 24,
    2007).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like