John Mack, Jr. v. John Burge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-02128-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999751650]. Mailed to: John Willie Mack, Jr.. [15-7380]

Appeal: 15-7380

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7380

JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DAVID BURGESS, Spartanburg City Police, In his
Individual and Official Capacities; GEORGE DAVID REEVES,
Custodian of Evidence For the Spartanburg City Police
Department, In His Individual and Official Capacities;
MANUEL J. ORTUNO, Forensics Analyst of South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division, In His Individual and Official
Capacities; ANTHONY C. LEIBERT, Solicitor and State Attorney
for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official
Capacities; BARRY JOE BARNETTE, Solicitor and State Attorney
for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official
Capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-02128-DCN)

Submitted:

January 27, 2016

Decided:

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Willie Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

February 9, 2016

Appeal: 15-7380

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7380

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Willie Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing
complaint. ∗
error.

without

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

Mack v. Burgess, No. 9:15-cv-02128-DCN (D.S.C.

Aug. 17, 2015).
facts

prejudice

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗

We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable.
See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).

3