Filed: May 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1693 STEPHEN W. STONE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SENECA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03401-HFF) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1693 STEPHEN W. STONE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SENECA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03401-HFF) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1693 STEPHEN W. STONE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SENECA SOUTH CAROLINA, CITY OF, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03401-HFF) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen W. Stone appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Seneca on all of Stone’s claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stone v. City of Seneca, South Carolina, No. 8:07-cv-03401-HFF (D.S.C. May 14, 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
