Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7375 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DERHAM COLE, Judge; ALEX STAVELY, Prosecutor; WILLIAMS MCPHERSON, Attorney of PD Office; DANIEL K. SWAD, Sheriff Officer; J. L. HALL, Officer; BRADFORD JAMES, Officer; MYLNER BEACH, Officer; ASHLEY C. HARRIS, Officer, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7375 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DERHAM COLE, Judge; ALEX STAVELY, Prosecutor; WILLIAMS MCPHERSON, Attorney of PD Office; DANIEL K. SWAD, Sheriff Officer; J. L. HALL, Officer; BRADFORD JAMES, Officer; MYLNER BEACH, Officer; ASHLEY C. HARRIS, Officer, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7375 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DERHAM COLE, Judge; ALEX STAVELY, Prosecutor; WILLIAMS MCPHERSON, Attorney of PD Office; DANIEL K. SWAD, Sheriff Officer; J. L. HALL, Officer; BRADFORD JAMES, Officer; MYLNER BEACH, Officer; ASHLEY C. HARRIS, Officer, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00452-PMD) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Foster appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Foster v. Cole, No. 3:09-cv-00452- PMD (D.S.C. June 30, 2009). 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