Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stephney v. Seaside Truck, 04-7800 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7800 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jan. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7800 WADE STEPHNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEASIDE TRUCK, Auto Sales & Auto Salesmen; BOBBY SANDERS; RONNIE SANDERS; T. J. HARRIS; HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CRYSTAL BURKE; NORTH BEACH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PHIL WEBSTER, Lieutenant; JOEL MCGARTLIN; J. W. MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7800 WADE STEPHNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEASIDE TRUCK, Auto Sales & Auto Salesmen; BOBBY SANDERS; RONNIE SANDERS; T. J. HARRIS; HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CRYSTAL BURKE; NORTH BEACH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PHIL WEBSTER, Lieutenant; JOEL MCGARTLIN; J. W. MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1381-4-27BH) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wade Stephney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wade Stephney 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 Stephney v. Seaside Truck, No. CA-04-1381-4-27BH (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 2004). We deny Stephney’s “Notice and Motion for Continue to Amended Additional Defendant,” and 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