Filed: Nov. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7075 CHANTOMMIE MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE JONES, Sergeant, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; BANNISTER, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; C. J. FULLER, Iver Police Department; COLENNA LYNN HAMBY; HARVEY SAMUEL GARLAND; RALF ALLEN GESELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-816-9-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7075 CHANTOMMIE MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE JONES, Sergeant, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; BANNISTER, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; C. J. FULLER, Iver Police Department; COLENNA LYNN HAMBY; HARVEY SAMUEL GARLAND; RALF ALLEN GESELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-816-9-2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7075 CHANTOMMIE MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE JONES, Sergeant, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; BANNISTER, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; C. J. FULLER, Iver Police Department; COLENNA LYNN HAMBY; HARVEY SAMUEL GARLAND; RALF ALLEN GESELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-816-9-23) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 20, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chantommie McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chantommie McBride appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. 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
