Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Daniel v. Pickens County Sheriff Department, 09-1986 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1986 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1986 LESLIE L. DANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; DAVID C. STONE, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Pickens County Sheriff Department South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:07-cv-04146-HMH) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1986 LESLIE L. DANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; DAVID C. STONE, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Pickens County Sheriff Department South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:07-cv-04146-HMH) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Talley, Greenville, South Carolina; Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derwood L. Aydlette, III, Christina M. Summer, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leslie L. Daniel appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Daniel’s claims of discrimination and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniel v. Pickens County Sheriff Dep’t, No. 8:07-cv-04146-HMH (D.S.C. July 31, 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