Albert Burgess, Jr. v. John Elliott


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-03325-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000141294]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6678]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6678 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6678 ALBERT C. BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN D. ELLIOTT; SCOTT ELLIOTT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:16-cv-03325-RBH) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tucker S. Player, PLAYER LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Drew Hamilton Butler, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Charleston, South Carolina; Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6678 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as barred by the statute of limitations his civil action for legal malpractice and tortious interference with contract and additionally dismissing his legal malpractice claim for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burgess v. Elliott, No. 3:16-cv-03325-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?