Filed: Oct. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1861 PATRICIA T. PATTERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES R. BARBER, III; GEORGE FUNDERBURK; SUSAN BARDEN; DAVID HUFFSTERTLER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00025-MBS) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1861 PATRICIA T. PATTERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES R. BARBER, III; GEORGE FUNDERBURK; SUSAN BARDEN; DAVID HUFFSTERTLER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00025-MBS) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1861
PATRICIA T. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES R. BARBER, III; GEORGE FUNDERBURK; SUSAN BARDEN; DAVID
HUFFSTERTLER,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-00025-MBS)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Patterson v. Barber, No. 0:10-cv-00025-MBS (D.S.C.
June 10, 2010). 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