Johnnie Cordero v. City of Columbia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-02502-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999221908]. Mailed to: Cordero. [13-6671]

Appeal: 13-6671

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6671

JOHNNIE CORDERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COLUMBIA, The, South Carolina; JOSEPH H. TIMMONS,
III, individually and in his official capacity as Risk
Manager of the City of Columbia South Carolina also known as
Chip; HATTIE M. BING, individually and in her official
capacity as Deputy Director of the City of Columbia
Department of Parks and Recreation; S. ALISON BAKER,
individually and in his official capacity as Senior
Assistant City Manager and Director of the Department of
Parks and Recreation of the City of Columbia South Carolina;
JACQUE GILLIAM, individually; PAMELA BENJAMIN, in her
official capacity as Director of Human Resources for the
City of Columbia South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JACQUE GILLIAM, in his official capacity as Director
Human Resources for the City of Columbia South Carolina,

of

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-02502-JFA)

Submitted:

October 17, 2013

Decided: October 21, 2013

Appeal: 13-6671

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, III,
NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6671

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnnie

Cordero

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief

on

Cordero’s

complaint

alleging

violations

under

42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Cordero

v.

City

(D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2013).

of

Columbia,

No.

3:11-cv-02502-JFA

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