Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01525/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01525-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1525

GEORGE CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SENECA SC, CITY OF; BONNIE L. MOSES, individually and in her 

official capacity as election manager, director, poll worker for 

the City of Seneca SC; RICK LACEY, individually and in his 

official capacity as Seneca Recreation Department Director; 

TERRY F. MULLIKIN, individually and in his official capacity as 

groundsman employed by the Seneca Recreation Department; RONNIE 

O’KELLY, Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Seneca individually and 

in his official capacity; SENECA POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN 

COVINGTON, individually and in his official capacity as Police 

Chief for the City of Seneca; JOHN DOES, in their official 

capacity as Police Officers for the City of Seneca,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

District Judge. (8:09-cv-00626-HMH)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 10-1525 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/03/2011 Pg: 1 of 3
2

George Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., 

LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1525 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/03/2011 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

George Cleveland appeals the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on Cleveland’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and a 

subsequent order denying Cleveland’s motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Cleveland v. Seneca SC, No. 8:09-cv-00626-HMH (D.S.C. 

Mar. 23, 2010; Apr. 9, 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

Appeal: 10-1525 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/03/2011 Pg: 3 of 3