Filed: Aug. 30, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6858 JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY C. LIEBERT, Assistant Solicitor, Defendant - Appellee, and J. ROGER POOLE, Public Defender, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-02372-DCN) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6858 JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY C. LIEBERT, Assistant Solicitor, Defendant - Appellee, and J. ROGER POOLE, Public Defender, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-02372-DCN) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6858
JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY C. LIEBERT, Assistant Solicitor,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
J. ROGER POOLE, Public Defender,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (7:10-cv-02372-DCN)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Willie Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Calhoun Haskell,
III, SMITH & HASKELL, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Willie Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. Mack v. Liebert, No. 7:10-cv-02372-DCN
(D.S.C. June 16, 2011 & June 17, 2011). 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