Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    McKenzie v. Baugh, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Dewayne McKenzie filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a solicitor and public defender which was dismissed by the district court. McKenzie appealed the dismissal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    McKenzie v. Baugh, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Dewayne McKenzie filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a solicitor and public defender which was dismissed by the district court. McKenzie appealed the dismissal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6733

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dewayne McKenzie filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a solicitor and public defender which was dismissed by the district court. McKenzie appealed the dismissal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    McKenzie v. Baugh, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Dewayne McKenzie filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a solicitor and public defender which was dismissed by the district court. McKenzie appealed the dismissal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 07-6733

    DEWAYNE MCKENZIE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SHERRIE BAUGH, Solicitor; RICK JONES, Public
    Defender,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (2:06-cv-00315-RBH)

    Submitted:

    July 24, 2007

    Decided:

    August 1, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dewayne McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Dewayne

    McKenzie

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing


    McKenzies 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    McKenzie v. Baugh, No.

    2:06-cv-00315-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 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