Myers v. State of S.C., 67 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Myers v. State of S.C., 67 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
87 citation events (51 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James-Bey v. N.C. Dept. of Public Safety (ncwd, 2019-10-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" James-Bey v. N.C. Dept. of Public Safety
W.D.N.C. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paige v. Virginia, 67 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table opinion); Bey v. North Carolina, No. 3:12-cv-454, 2012 WL 3528005 , *1 (W.D.N.C.
discussed Cited "see" Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shipley v. Lockheed Aeromod Ctr., Inc., 67 F.3d 296 , 1995 WL 573042, at *3 (4th Cir.1995) (unpublished table decision). [4] See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 860 (5th Cir.1998)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nwanze v. Time, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Nwanze v. Tepper Brothers, 67 F.3d 296 (4th Cir.1995) (affirming dismissal of his pro se breach of contract claim); Nwanze v. Woody, 43 F.3d 1467 (4th Cir.1994) (affirming dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim).
Tony L.C. Myers
v.
State of South Carolina Richard A. Harpoolian, Solicitor Ronald Cook, Sled Agent John Bolin, Director, University South Carolina Harry M. Tokunaga, Magistrate Mark Calhoon, Deputy Solicitor Officer Rinehart William Snyder E.R. Goff, Jr. A. Belcher Mickey E. McCaulley Sheriff Mel Mauer, Magistrate Danny C. Crowe, Municipal Court Judge James C. Anders, Former Solicitor C.D. Elliott Commander Roberts J.T. Wright, Lieutenant Officer Sander L.F. Jenkins, Deputy Sheriff David Hoffman, USC Police Lieutenant Bob Coble, Mayor, City of Columbia Allen Sloan, Sheriff Charles Austin, Chief of Police Jim Potash Bruce Seibert Tom Berry Steve Connally, Lieutenant K.J. Mooney, Lieutenant Officer Hinson Police Department, City of Columbia
95-6295.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 12, 1995.
67 F.3d 296
Unpublished

67 F.3d 296

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Tony L.C. MYERS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; Richard A. Harpoolian, Solicitor;
Ronald Cook, Sled Agent; John Bolin, Director, University
South Carolina; Harry M. Tokunaga, Magistrate; Mark
Calhoon, Deputy Solicitor; Officer Rinehart; William
Snyder; E.R. Goff, Jr.; A. Belcher; Mickey E. Mccaulley,
Sheriff; Mel Mauer, Magistrate; Danny C. Crowe, Municipal
Court Judge; James C. Anders, Former Solicitor; C.D.
Elliott; Commander Roberts; J.T. Wright, Lieutenant;
Officer Sander; L.F. Jenkins, Deputy Sheriff; David
Hoffman, Usc Police Lieutenant; Bob Coble, Mayor, City of
Columbia; Allen Sloan, Sheriff; Charles Austin, Chief of
Police; Jim Potash; Bruce Seibert; Tom Berry; Steve
Connally, Lieutenant; K.J. Mooney, Lieutenant; Officer
Hinson; Police Department, City of Columbia, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6295.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-3352-3-17BD)

Tony L.C. Myers, appellant pro se.

William Llewellyn Pope, Pope & Rodgers, Columbia, SC; Robert Gordon Cooper, Columbia, SC; Ellen Alicia Mercer, Collins & Lacy, Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal because the order is not a final order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.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.

2

DISMISSED.