Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07380/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7380

JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN DAVID BURGESS, Spartanburg City Police, In his 

Individual and Official Capacities; GEORGE DAVID REEVES, 

Custodian of Evidence For the Spartanburg City Police 

Department, In His Individual and Official Capacities; 

MANUEL J. ORTUNO, Forensics Analyst of South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Division, In His Individual and Official 

Capacities; ANTHONY C. LEIBERT, Solicitor and State Attorney 

for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official 

Capacities; BARRY JOE BARNETTE, Solicitor and State Attorney 

for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official 

Capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(9:15-cv-02128-DCN)

Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Willie Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 15-7380 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7380 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

John Willie Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)

complaint.∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

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

district court. Mack v. Burgess, No. 9:15-cv-02128-DCN (D.S.C. 

Aug. 17, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 ∗ We conclude that the district court’s order is final and 

appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 

F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).

Appeal: 15-7380 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3