Bryant v. City of Cayce

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 7, 2011
• Docket: 10-1682
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1682

BRENDA BRYANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CAYCE; M.L. BRAKEFIELD, South Carolina Cayce Police Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City of Cayce; W.E. ACKERMAN, South Carolina Cayce Police Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City of Cayce; OFFICER POPENHAGEN, South Carolina Cayce Police Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City of Cayce; MASTERS ECONOMY INN, INCORPORATED; ROGER ARMSTRONG, Manager, individually and as the agent and employee of Masters Economy Inn, Incorporated,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00333-MJP)

Submitted: March 16, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Sterling Graydon Davies, Clary Edward Rawl, Jr., MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Brenda Bryant appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and conclude there was no reversible

error in any of the district court’s dispositive rulings.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Bryant v. City of Cayce, No. 3:06-cv-00333-MJP

(D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2007 & May 19, 2010). We further deny as moot

Bryant’s motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the

district court’s resolution of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for reconsideration. Finally, we deny Bryant’s motion for the

appointment of counsel. 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