Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0159-02.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

Chris HOLLOMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH SC; Robert Starr, individually as an officer with the Myrtle Beach Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-1774.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 31, 2007.
    Decided: Aug. 15, 2007.
    
      J. Christopher Mills, J. Christopher Mills, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Cynthia Graham Howe, Battle & Vaught, P.A., Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Chris Holloman appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Myrtle Beach and Officer Robert Starr on Holloman’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Holloman v. City of Myrtle Beach, No. 4:04-cv-01868-TLW (D.S.C. June 8, 2006). 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. 
      
       Subsequent to the filing of Holloman's notice of appeal, the district court granted Holloman’s motion to correct the judgment. The district court entered an amended judgment declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Holloman’s state law claims and remanding those claims to state court. That order is not at issue in this appeal.