Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Cleveland v. Abernathy, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Cleveland filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against city officials which was denied by the district court. Cleveland appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors, so they affirmed the district court's ruling to deny Cleveland's complaint and subsequent motion to alter the judgment. The appeals court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Cleveland v. Abernathy, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    George Cleveland filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against city officials which was denied by the district court. Cleveland appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors, so they affirmed the district court's ruling to deny Cleveland's complaint and subsequent motion to alter the judgment. The appeals court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1471

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Cleveland filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against city officials which was denied by the district court. Cleveland appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors, so they affirmed the district court's ruling to deny Cleveland's complaint and subsequent motion to alter the judgment. The appeals court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Cleveland v. Abernathy, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Cleveland filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against city officials which was denied by the district court. Cleveland appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no reversible errors, so they affirmed the district court's ruling to deny Cleveland's complaint and subsequent motion to alter the judgment. The appeals court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-1471

    GEORGE CLEVELAND,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    LARRY W. ABERNATHY, Major, in his official capacities as
    Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the City of Clemson,
    South Carolina; BUFORD E. TRENT, a/k/a Butch, in his
    official capacities as Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Clemson,
    South Carolina,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:08-cv-00517-HMH)

    Submitted:

    July 30, 2009

    Decided:

    August 4, 2009

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se.


    James Dean Jolly, Jr.,
    LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    George

    Cleveland

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying


    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint,

    and

    subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to


    alter or amend judgment.
    no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

    stated by the district court.


    cv-00517-HMH

    (D.S.C.

    Mar.

    24,

    Cleveland v. Abernathy, No. 8:082009).

    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like