Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Macon v. Beddingfield, 04-1778 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1778 Visitors: 57
Filed: Aug. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1778 JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D. B. BROOKS, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; DAVID J. ROGERS, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United Sta
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1778 JOSEPH E. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D. B. BROOKS, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; DAVID J. ROGERS, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA- 02-3734-8-26-BI) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph E. Macon 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Macon v. Beddingfield, No. CA-02-3734-8-26-BI (D.S.C. filed June 7, 2004 & entered June 8, 2004). We deny appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 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 - 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