Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1025 EDWARD R. SPEARS, a/k/a Edward Rodney Spears, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FLORENCE MAGISTRATE COURT, civil dept; JUDGE NEON LANGELY; JUDGE EUGENE COOPER; CONSTABLE MARY EADDY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:11-cv-01717-TLW) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1025 EDWARD R. SPEARS, a/k/a Edward Rodney Spears, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FLORENCE MAGISTRATE COURT, civil dept; JUDGE NEON LANGELY; JUDGE EUGENE COOPER; CONSTABLE MARY EADDY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:11-cv-01717-TLW) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1025
EDWARD R. SPEARS, a/k/a Edward Rodney Spears,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FLORENCE MAGISTRATE COURT, civil dept; JUDGE NEON LANGELY;
JUDGE EUGENE COOPER; CONSTABLE MARY EADDY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-01717-TLW)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Spears, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward R. Spears 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spears
v. Florence Magistrate Court, No. 4:11-cv-01717-TLW (D.S.C. Oct.
17, 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