Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02213/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02213-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-2213

HENRY PIERCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIMMY ALFORD, JR., 

Individually and as Chief of Mullins Police Department; M. 

C. PAGE, Individually and as an employee of the City of 

Mullins Police Department; MICHAEL BETHEA, Individually and 

as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; 

JACK DAVIS, Individually and as an employee of the City of 

Mullins Police Department; BILL BULLARD, Individually and as

an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; 

BENJAMIN WILLIS, Individually and as an employee of the City 

of Mullins Police Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:00-cv-04004-TLW)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton D. Lide, LIDE & PAULEY, 

LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Katherine Anne Phillips, Lake E. 

Appeal: 09-2213 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Summers, MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-2213 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry Pierce appeals the district court’s order 

denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(6), in which he sought a new trial on his excessive force 

claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Pierce v. City of Mullins Police Dep’t, No. 

4:00-cv-04004-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2009). 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: 09-2213 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 3 of 3