Richard Capell v. C. Lee Carter, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00586-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999340933].. [14-1168]

Appeal: 14-1168

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1168

RICHARD A. CAPELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. LEE CARTER, III; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY; YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; TFC DW JENKINS;
YORK COUNTY DEPUTY ALDRIDGE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TROOPER SCDPS; DEPUTY YORK COUNTY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00586-TLW)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Capell, Appellant Pro Se.
Eugene Matthews,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-1168

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1168

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard A. Capell appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint raising claims under Title II of the
Americans

With

Disabilities

Act

of

1990,

42

U.S.C.

§ 12132

(2006), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986
(2006).
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

Capell v. Carter, No. 3:13-cv-00586-TLW (D.S.C.

Jan. 16, 2014).

We deny Capell’s requests for video evidence,

for appointment of counsel, to seal his case, for waiver of
fees, and to serve documents electronically.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3