Filed: Aug. 04, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7952 BERNARD MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DESIREE R. ALLEN, Court Services Manager; MARGARET T. SULLIVAN, Official Court Reporter for Sumter County Court of General Sessions in their individual or personal and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-05-887-3-RBH) Submitted: July
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7952 BERNARD MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DESIREE R. ALLEN, Court Services Manager; MARGARET T. SULLIVAN, Official Court Reporter for Sumter County Court of General Sessions in their individual or personal and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-05-887-3-RBH) Submitted: July ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7952
BERNARD MCFADDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DESIREE R. ALLEN, Court Services Manager;
MARGARET T. SULLIVAN, Official Court Reporter
for Sumter County Court of General Sessions in
their individual or personal and official
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-05-887-3-RBH)
Submitted: July 21, 2006 Decided: August 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court on the basis
that this action is precluded by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477
(1994). 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 -