James Tennant v. Georgetown, City of

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00370-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999549141]. Mailed to: James Tenant. [14-2131]

Appeal: 14-2131

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2131

JAMES M. TENNANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGETOWN, CITY OF, a Municipal Corporation; PAUL GARDNER;
ANN MERCER; CINDY HOWARD; BRENDON M. BARBER, SR.; JACK M.
SCOVILLE, JR., in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
DOUGLAS CHARLES BAXTER, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00370-RMG)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Tennant, Appellant Pro Se.
Douglas Charles Baxter,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, Michelle
Parsons
Kelley,
RICHARDSON,
PLOWDEN
&

Appeal: 14-2131

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2131

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

M.

Tennant

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief

on

Tennant’s

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint,

and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that
judgment.
error.

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

district court.

See Tennant v. City of Georgetown, No. 2:12-cv-

00370-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2014 & Sept. 19, 2014).

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