UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1802
ERIC NELSON; LISA NELSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; ERNEST FINNEY,
individually; JEAN HOEFER TOAL, individually;
JAMES E. MOORE, individually; JOHN H. WALLER,
JR., individually; E.C. BURNETT, III, individ-
ually; DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; HENRY RICHARDSON,
individually; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON, individually;
JAMES BOGLE, individually; EMORY SMITH, indi-
vidually; SEVERAL UNKNOWN ATTORNEYS AND/OR
INVESTIGATORS, employed by the South Carolina
Attorney General, individually; ELDON RISHER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-99-2015-4-24)
Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Nelson, Lisa Nelson, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Peterson
Groves, Sr., John Hamilton Smith, YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE,
Charleston, South Carolina; Richard Mark Gergel, David Eliot
Rothstein, GERGEL, NICKLES & SOLOMON, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Nelson v. South Carolina Supreme Court, No. CA-99-2015-4-24 (D.S.C.
May 14, 2001). 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
2