Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
19-6251•Thomas Bradford Waters, a/k/a Thomas Waters v. JOHN STEWART, Lake City Police Department
19-6251Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit26.08.2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6251
THOMAS BRADFORD WATERS, a/k/a Thomas Waters,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN STEWART, Lake City Police Department; MARK STRICKLAND, Lake
City Police Department; SERGEANT ANTHONY BACKHUSS, Lake City Police
Department; JODY COOPER, Lake City Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees,
And
A.T.F. AGENT ALAN C. TOWNSEND; JOHN DOE, #1, Florence County E.M.S.
Worker; JOHN DOE, #2, Florence County E.M.S. Worker,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:15-cv-04143-RBH-TER)
Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Thomas Bradford Waters, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Arlene Thomas, THOMPSON &
HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Bradford Waters appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants summary judgment in
Waters’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Waters
v. Stewart, No. 4:15-cv-04143-RBH-TER (D.S.C. Sept. 24, 2018; Dec. 20, 2018; Mar. 13,
2019). We grant Waters’ motion to amend his informal brief, but deny his motion for the
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.