ANDERSON v. CITY OF CAMDEN, 11-2215. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120323070
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton Anderson and Richard Stoerkel filed suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006). The district court awarded Defendants summary judgment, and Anderson and Stoerkel now appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. City of Camden , No. 3:10-cv-02547-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2011). We dispense wit
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton Anderson and Richard Stoerkel filed suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006). The district court awarded Defendants summary judgment, and Anderson and Stoerkel now appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. City of Camden , No. 3:10-cv-02547-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2011). We dispense with..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clifton Anderson and Richard Stoerkel filed suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). The district court awarded Defendants summary judgment, and Anderson and Stoerkel now appeal.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. City of Camden, No. 3:10-cv-02547-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2011). 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.
Source: Leagle
