Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Steve Lester v. in Employee LT Church, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Plaintiff Steve Lester in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6770

    Original Title

    Steve Lester v. In Employee LT Church, 4th Cir. (2013)

    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    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Plaintiff Steve Lester in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    Steve Lester v. in Employee LT Church, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Plaintiff Steve Lester in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6770

    STEVE LESTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    IN EMPLOYEE LT CHURCH; IN EMPLOYEE DHO TUNER, a/k/a Truner,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (4:11-cv-02994-TMC)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    THACKER,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    September 27, 2013

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Steve Lester, Appellant Pro Se.


    James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
    OROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Steve

    Lester

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying


    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Lester

    v. In Employee LT Church, No. 4:11-cv-02994-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 30,


    2013).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like