Field v. McMaster, (4th Cir. 2010)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 10-1957

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1957

ARTHUR M. FIELD, PhD.; KATHRYN TAILLON; T. BART KELLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDING LLC, Jerry T. Saad, Receiver for

Capital Investment Funding LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY D. MCMASTER, Individually and as Securities

Commissioner of South Carolina; WILLIAM JOSEPH CONDON, JR.,

Individually and as Assistant Securities Commissioner; TOMMY

WINDSOR, Individually and as Securities Investigator; JOE F.

JORDAN, JR., Individually and as an Investigator of the

Attorney General; JENNIFER EVANS, as personal

representative; LANSING LOGAN, Individually and as a Special

Investigator of the Attorney General; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL, State of South Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:09-cv-01949-HMH)

Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur M. Field, Kathryn Taillon, T. Bart Kelley, Appellants Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Evan Markus Gessner, Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Arthur M. Field, Kathryn Taillon, and T. Bart Kelley appeal the district court's order adopting in part the magistrate judge's recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of several state employees in this 42U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the Appellants' motion to file a state transcript as an attachment to their informal brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Field v. McMaster, No. 6:09-cv-01949-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2010).

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