Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mitchell v. Cannon, 09-1442 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1442 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1442 WILLIAM C. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AL CANNON, Sheriff, personally and in his official capacity; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STEPHEN C. GATES, Deputy, personally; TIMOTHY RICHARD BRANHAM, personally; CYPRESS RECOVERY, Defendants – Appellees, and CHAD W. ROOD, Deputy, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Dis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1442 WILLIAM C. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AL CANNON, Sheriff, personally and in his official capacity; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STEPHEN C. GATES, Deputy, personally; TIMOTHY RICHARD BRANHAM, personally; CYPRESS RECOVERY, Defendants – Appellees, and CHAD W. ROOD, Deputy, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cv-03259-PMD) Submitted: January 26, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; James Chaplin Cox, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William C. Mitchell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the defendants summary judgment, and dismissing Mitchell’s action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mitchell v. Cannon, No. 2:07-cv-03259- PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 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 3
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