Mike Settle v. Michael Slager

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-01802-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999736367]. Mailed to: Mike Settle. [15-7052]

Appeal: 15-7052

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7052

MIKE SETTLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL SLAGER, sued in their individual and
capacities; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
their individual and official capacities,

official
sued in

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-01802-RMG)

Submitted:

November 23, 2015

Decided:

January 15, 2016

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mike Settle, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7052

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mike Settle appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
record and find no reversible error.
was

not

required

before

the

district

We have reviewed the
First, Settle’s consent
court

referred

to

the

magistrate judge for a non-dispositive ruling, and the district
court appropriately conducted a de novo review of those portions
of the report to which Settle objected.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

Moreover, as the district court held, Settle has no

standing to assert the constitutional rights of a third party,
see Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 1990), and
his state claim is likewise meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

Settle v. Slager,

No. 2:15-cv-01802-RMG (D.S.C. June 22, 2015).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2