Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

934 F.2d 319

934 F.2d 319

Charles J. HUGHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph L. SAVITZ, III, individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Appellate Defender at the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense Program, (from) 10/24/88-6/13/89), John & Jane Doe, One, Two, Three, Four, and Five, individually and in his and her official capacity as Assistant Appellate Defenders at the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense Program, (from) 10/24/88-6/13/89, William Isaac Diggs, individually and in his official capacity as ex-Chief Attorney at the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense Program (from) 10/24/88-3/89, Elizabeth C. Fullwood, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Chief Attorney at the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense Program (from) 10/24/88-6/13/89, the Dean of the University of South Carolina Law School, David I. Bruck, Ex-President of the South Carolina Public Defenders Association (from) 10/24/88-6/13/89, the President of the South Carolina Bar Association, the President of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, the Chairman of the South Carolina Judicial Council, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or His Designee, the Chairman of the House of Representatives or His Designee, all individually and in their official capacity as members of the Office of the South Carolina Appellate Defense Programs' Commission, (from) 10/24/88-6/13/89, Defendants-Appellees, The United States Attorney General, Intervenor.

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

No. 91-6261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 1991.
Decided May 29, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-90-1331)

Charles J. Hughey, appellant pro se.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Charles J. Hughey appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hughey v. Savitz, CA-90-1331 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 1990). 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

/934/f2d/319 · .json · Public domain