Broten v. Charleston County
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES M. BROTEN, a/k/a Jim Broten, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; J. ALTON CANNON, JR., Sheriff; ROLAND H. WINDHAM, JR., Charleston County Administrator; CHIEF DEPUTY K. P. NOVAK, Chief Jailor; OFFICER CCDC OFFICER FORRESTER; OFFICER CCDC OFFICER TIPTON; UNKNOWN, CCDC Tag Team Officers; UNKNOWN, CCDC Nurse Betty; JOHN DOES, unknown CCDC officers, Defendants - Appellees, and US MARSHALS; D. LYNES, a/k/a D. Lyons, Interim Chief United States Marshalls Service, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:04-cv-01413-RBH)
Submitted: July 20, 2006
Decided: July 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James H. Broten, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Michael J. Ferri, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Holmes Hood, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Gerald Chambers, Jr., Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER & PADGETT, Charleston, South Carolina; Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: James M. Broten appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed
Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Broten v. Charleston County Det. Ctr., No. 8:04-cv-01413-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2006). 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?