Filed: Mar. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2215 CLIFTON ANDERSON; RICHARD STOERKEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, South Carolina; MIKE STONE, Lieutenant; KERSHAW COUNTY; PEGGY SPIVEY; BOBBIE BULLINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cv-02547-JFA) Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 23, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2215 CLIFTON ANDERSON; RICHARD STOERKEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, South Carolina; MIKE STONE, Lieutenant; KERSHAW COUNTY; PEGGY SPIVEY; BOBBIE BULLINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cv-02547-JFA) Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 23, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2215
CLIFTON ANDERSON; RICHARD STOERKEL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CAMDEN, South Carolina; MIKE STONE, Lieutenant;
KERSHAW COUNTY; PEGGY SPIVEY; BOBBIE BULLINGTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:10-cv-02547-JFA)
Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 23, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifton Anderson; Richard Stoerkel, Appellants Pro Se. David
Leon Morrison, MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina;
James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clifton Anderson and Richard Stoerkel filed suit
against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006). The
district court awarded Defendants summary judgment, and Anderson
and Stoerkel now appeal.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Anderson v. City of Camden, No. 3:10-cv-
02547-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2011). 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