Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case where Tyrone Foster Davis appealed a district court order denying his motion to reopen the period for objecting to a magistrate judge's report. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case where Tyrone Foster Davis appealed a district court order denying his motion to reopen the period for objecting to a magistrate judge's report. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7716

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case where Tyrone Foster Davis appealed a district court order denying his motion to reopen the period for objecting to a magistrate judge's report. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case where Tyrone Foster Davis appealed a district court order denying his motion to reopen the period for objecting to a magistrate judge's report. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7716

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TYRONE FOSTER DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-91-48, CA-95-986-6-3AK, CA-97-1113-7-13)

    Submitted:

    July 2, 1998

    Decided:

    July 20, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Tyrone Foster Davis, Appellant Pro Se. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district courts order denying his
    motion to reopen the period for objecting to the report of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
    decision of the district court. United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-9148, CA-95-986-6-3AK, CA-97-1113-7-13 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 1997). 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