Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0416-01.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

Richard A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, a municipality of the State of South Carolina; Paul Mead, Detective; G. Stinney, Officer; Joe Cronin, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-1153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2004.
    Decided: June 29, 2004.
    Richard A. Patterson, Appellant pro se.
    Robert Gordon Cooper, Office of the City Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David Leon Morrison, Matthew Blain Rosbrugh, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Patterson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Patterson v. The City of Columbia, No. CA-02-2386-3 (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2003). 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