William McKinnedy, III v. Brenda Kee-Lippe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cv-02298-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998950323]. Mailed to: McKinnedy. [12-6950]

Appeal: 12-6950

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6950

WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. BRENDA KEE-LIPPE, 041334 Officer; SERGEANT CLARK, A-2
Shift; LIEUTENANT G. MACKEY; CAPTAIN SMITH; C. JOHNSON; R.
MILLER; T. SMITH; THOMPSON; M. JONES; FORD; D. SEWARD; J.
WASHINGTON; J. MCKAYE; C. REYNOLDS; J. ARMSTRONG; A.
SELLARS; P. HOUGH; A. HARDIN; M. COLEMAN; G. POTOKA; O.
SHAHEED; ROBERT WARD; D. PATTERSON; C. LONG; SCARBOROUGH; N.
HUGHES, JR.; E. ROWE; C. CANNON; S. WILLIS; B. BAKER; H.
MCMASTER; J. OZMINT; ROLLINGS; T. MUTAKABBIR; J. SLIGH, JR.;
R. PITTMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cv-02298-HMH)

Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven
Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON,
Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 12-6950

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6950

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Clayton McKinnedy, III, appeals the district
court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge

and

denying

relief

on

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration.
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

(2006)
We have

Accordingly,

district

court.

McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe, No. 6:10-cv-02298-HMH (D.S.C. Mar 13,
2012 & Apr. 16, 2012).

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

3