Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brandy Harris v. Britney May, 19-1418 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1418 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1418 BRANDY V. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRITNEY MAY; ANDRES MALDONADO; CHRISTOPHER PRICE; CAMERON KIRBY; SEAN SERCU; WILLIAM WATSON; BRANDON AVIDON; ANTOINE LOGAN; JANE MODLA, Judge; PETER LENZI; PAULA BROWN, Prosecutor; MUNICIPAL COURT ROCK HILL S.C., 120 E. Black St. 29730; KENNETH MARTIN; DANIELS SHEALY; KEENA MCCROREY; JUSTIN SPADER; LEWIS RAYMES; KENYATTA TRIPP; SCOTT CRIBB; OFFICER MURPHY; INVESTIGATOR OFFICE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1418 BRANDY V. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRITNEY MAY; ANDRES MALDONADO; CHRISTOPHER PRICE; CAMERON KIRBY; SEAN SERCU; WILLIAM WATSON; BRANDON AVIDON; ANTOINE LOGAN; JANE MODLA, Judge; PETER LENZI; PAULA BROWN, Prosecutor; MUNICIPAL COURT ROCK HILL S.C., 120 E. Black St. 29730; KENNETH MARTIN; DANIELS SHEALY; KEENA MCCROREY; JUSTIN SPADER; LEWIS RAYMES; KENYATTA TRIPP; SCOTT CRIBB; OFFICER MURPHY; INVESTIGATOR OFFICER WELCH; SUPERVISOR OFFICER BREEDEN; SUPERVISOR OFFICER HUMPHRIES, Defendants - Appellees, and ROCK HILL MUNICIPAL COURT, 120 East Black, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:18-cv-03499-MGL) Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 30, 2019 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandy V. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Brandy V. Harris appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. May, No. 0:18-cv-03499-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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