TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rothwell v. Campbell

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.

Rothwell v. Campbell, 993 F.2d 1538 (4th Cir. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 28, 1993
Docket
No. 93-6258
Citations
993 F.2d 15381993 WL 181164
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nat'l Advert. Co. v. City of Raleigh, N.C., Southern Env't Law Ctr., Amicus Curiae, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) 198

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list