Filed: Jul. 24, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6606 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK C. MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; REGAN PENDLETON, Assistant United States Attorney; MARTIN BROWN, Special Agent for the FBI; ROBERT SCOTT, Special Agent of the FBI; JANET BROWN, Internal Revenue Service Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr.,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6606 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK C. MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; REGAN PENDLETON, Assistant United States Attorney; MARTIN BROWN, Special Agent for the FBI; ROBERT SCOTT, Special Agent of the FBI; JANET BROWN, Internal Revenue Service Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6606 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK C. MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; REGAN PENDLETON, Assistant United States Attorney; MARTIN BROWN, Special Agent for the FBI; ROBERT SCOTT, Special Agent of the FBI; JANET BROWN, Internal Revenue Service Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-82-6-20AK) Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryson v. Moore, No. CA-02-82-6-20AK (D.S.C. filed Feb. 22, 2002; entered Feb. 25, 2002). 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