Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 10-1957.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2010.
    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.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 42 U.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, 2010 WL 3257888 (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.