Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Maradiaga v. Wilson, 07-7556 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7556 Visitors: 38
Filed: Apr. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7556 ERIC MARADIAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARREN WILSON, Highway Patrolman; DAVID THOMLEY, Captain and Highway Patrolman, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:05-cv-2836-PMD) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7556 ERIC MARADIAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARREN WILSON, Highway Patrolman; DAVID THOMLEY, Captain and Highway Patrolman, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:05-cv-2836-PMD) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Maradiaga, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Jonathan Bridgmon, Ruskin C. Foster, Hanna Stokes Green, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Donna Seegars Givens, WOODS & GIVENS, LLP, Lexington, South Carolina; Harry H. Stokes, Jr., MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Maradiaga appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to the Defendants, and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Maradiaga v. Wilson, No. 4:05-cv- 2836-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2007). We also deny the motion to appoint counsel. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer