Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Foster v. Powers, 19-2021 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-2021 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6354 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LARRY W. POWERS, Director of Spartanburg County Jail; TONY FISHER, Director of Spartanburg City Police Department; OFFICER HALL; K D SWAD; BRAD JAMES, Defendants – Appellees, and OFFICER BOOKEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00025-PMD) Submitted: July 30
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6354 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LARRY W. POWERS, Director of Spartanburg County Jail; TONY FISHER, Director of Spartanburg City Police Department; OFFICER HALL; K D SWAD; BRAD JAMES, Defendants – Appellees, and OFFICER BOOKEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00025-PMD) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina; James Dean Jolly, Jr., LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Foster appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Foster’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a preliminary injunction, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Foster v. Powers, No. 3:08-cv-00025-PMD (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2009). 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