Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clifton Anderson v. City of Camden, 11-2215 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2215 Visitors: 39
Filed: Mar. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2215 CLIFTON ANDERSON; RICHARD STOERKEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, South Carolina; MIKE STONE, Lieutenant; KERSHAW COUNTY; PEGGY SPIVEY; BOBBIE BULLINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cv-02547-JFA) Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 23, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-2215


CLIFTON ANDERSON; RICHARD STOERKEL,

                Plaintiffs - Appellants,

          v.

CITY OF CAMDEN, South Carolina; MIKE STONE, Lieutenant;
KERSHAW COUNTY; PEGGY SPIVEY; BOBBIE BULLINGTON,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:10-cv-02547-JFA)


Submitted:   March 13, 2012                 Decided:   March 23, 2012


Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Clifton Anderson; Richard Stoerkel, Appellants Pro Se.     David
Leon Morrison, MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina;
James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Clifton     Anderson   and   Richard   Stoerkel   filed   suit

against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006).              The

district court awarded Defendants summary judgment, and Anderson

and Stoerkel now appeal.

          We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error.   Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.     See Anderson v. City of Camden, No. 3:10-cv-

02547-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 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

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