Alexander Pastene v. N. Sprouse


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-01390-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998415199] [10-1606]

Download PDF
Alexander Pastene v. N. Sprouse Doc. 0 Case: 10-1606 Document: 18 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1606 ALEXANDER PASTENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N. L. SPROUSE, SC Trooper; BC MAGISTRATE NANCY D. SADLER; BC SHERIFF DEPUTY NFN MICHAUD; BC SHERIFF DEPUTY NFN COOLER; BC SHERIFF DEPUTY NFN CREGAN; JONATHAN BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (0:09-cv-01390-PMD) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Pastene, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina; Mary Bass Lohr, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Sterling Graydon Davies, Clary Edward Rawl, Jr., MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-1606 Document: 18 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Alexander Pastene 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, Pastene We legal we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. v. Sprouse, No. 0:09-cv-1390-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010). dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?