Rothwell v. Campbell, 993 F.2d 1538 (4th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Rothwell v. Campbell, 993 F.2d 1538 (4th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matthew LeFande v. United States of America Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (vaed, 2026-03-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Matthew LeFande v. United States of America Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
E.D. Va. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Petros v. Sanitation Dep’t, 993 F.2d 1538 , 1993 WL 174158 , at *1 n* (4th Cir. May 25, 1993) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless where the plaintiff responded to the motion); Brooks v. Mahon, 33 F.3d 51 , 1994 WL 416403 , at *1 n.* (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 1994) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless because “Appellant actually responded”). jurisdictional claims.” Mortensen v. First Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Raja v. Gorman
E.D. Va. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Petros v. Sanitation Dep’t, 993 F.2d 1538 , 1993 WL 174158 , at *1 n* (4th Cir. May 25, 1993) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless where the plaintiff responded to the motion); Brooks v. Mahon, 33 F.3d 51 , 1994 WL 416403 , at *1 n.* (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 1994) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless because “Appellant actually responded”).
cited Cited "see" NCNB Financial Services, Inc. v. Shumate
W.D. Va. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See NCNB Financial Services, Inc. v. Shumate, et al, Slip Op. No. 92-2474 [ 993 F.2d 1538 (Table)] (4th Cir. May 18, 1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." White v. Trans Union LLC
E.D. Va. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Petros v. Sanitation Dep’t, 993 F.2d 1538 , 1993 WL 174158 , at *1 n* (4th Cir. May 25, 1993) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless where the plaintiff responded to the motion); Brooks v. Mahon, 33 F.3d 51 , 1994 WL 416403 , at *1 n.* (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 1994) (noting that the failure to issue a Roseboro notice was harmless because “Appellant actually responded”). 189 (4th Cir. 2010), aff’d sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Calvin Rothwell
v.
Carroll A. Campbell Parker Evatt Flora B. Boyd Gene Baker William Bornhill George Bubuka South Carolina Department of Corrections, Members of South Carolina Department of Corrections Members of the South Carolina Board of Corrections Members of Escod Industries Co.
93-6258.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 28, 1993.
993 F.2d 1538
Unpublished

993 F.2d 1538

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Calvin ROTHWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Carroll A. CAMPBELL; Parker Evatt; Flora B. Boyd; Gene
Baker; William Bornhill; George Bubuka; South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Members of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; Members of the South Carolina
Board of Corrections; Members of Escod Industries Co.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6258.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 28, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-91-2774-2J)

James Calvin Rothwell, Appellant Pro Se.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

James Calvin Rothwell appeals from the district court's order that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice because the complaint contained false information. 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. Rothwell v. Campbell, No. CA-91-2774-2J (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 1993). 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

*

We note that the dismissal in this case was without prejudice. Unless Rothwell's claims state a continuing constitutional violation, see National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1166-68 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 60 U.S.L.W. 3782 (U.S. 1992), he must refile his complaint within South Carolina's three-year statute of limitations. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5) (Law Co-op. Supp. 1991)