Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Hamilton v. Middleton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Lamar Hamilton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various police departments and officers. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Hamilton relief. Hamilton appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Hamilton v. Middleton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Terrance Lamar Hamilton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various police departments and officers. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Hamilton relief. Hamilton appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-11-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7126

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terrance Lamar Hamilton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various police departments and officers. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Hamilton relief. Hamilton appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Hamilton v. Middleton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Lamar Hamilton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various police departments and officers. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Hamilton relief. Hamilton appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case 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. 03-7126

    TERRANCE LAMAR HAMILTON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TONY
    MIDDLETON;
    NORTH CHARLESTON
    POLICE
    DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CHIEF OF POLICE;
    CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
    (CA-02-1952-4-23BH)

    Submitted:

    October 10, 2003

    Decided:

    November 21, 2003

    Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terrance Lamar Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.


    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Sandra Jane Senn,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Terrance Lamar Hamilton appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on


    the reasoning of the district court. See Hamilton v. Middleton, No.
    CA-02-1952-4-23BH (D.S.C. June 20, 2003).

    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

    You might also like