Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01442/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01442-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Richard Branham
Appellee
Al Cannon
Appellee
Charleston County Sheriff Department
Appellee
Cypress Recovery
Appellee
Stephen C. Gates
Appellee
William C. Mitchell
Appellant
Chad W. Rood

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1442

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AL CANNON, Sheriff, personally and in his official capacity; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STEPHEN C. GATES,

Deputy, personally; TIMOTHY RICHARD BRANHAM, personally; 

CYPRESS RECOVERY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CHAD W. ROOD, Deputy,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-03259-PMD)

Submitted: January 26, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, 

SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; 

Appeal: 09-1442 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

James Chaplin Cox, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1442 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

William C. Mitchell appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting 

the defendants summary judgment, and dismissing Mitchell’s 

action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Mitchell v. Cannon, No. 2:07-cv-03259-

PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 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: 09-1442 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3