Case Name: David Farrell SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; James Hartman, County Administrator; Jennifer Wells, Assistant Solicitor; Harold W. Gowdy, III, Solicitor; Sheriff, Spartanburg County; Clay T. Allen, Public Defender; Sergeant Hopkins; Unknown Deputy; Loretta Roher; Shane Diedmon; Bill Blanton, Sheriff, Cherokee County; Unknown Deputies; Larry Powers, Administrator; Unknown Sergeant; Unknown Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-03
Citations: 225 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 06-6531
Parties: David Farrell SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; James Hartman, County Administrator; Jennifer Wells, Assistant Solicitor; Harold W. Gowdy, III, Solicitor; Sheriff, Spartanburg County; Clay T. Allen, Public Defender; Sergeant Hopkins; Unknown Deputy; Loretta Roher; Shane Diedmon; Bill Blanton, Sheriff, Cherokee County; Unknown Deputies; Larry Powers, Administrator; Unknown Sergeant; Unknown Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
David Farrell SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; James Hartman, County Administrator; Jennifer Wells, Assistant Solicitor; Harold W. Gowdy, III, Solicitor; Sheriff, Spartanburg County; Clay T. Allen, Public Defender; Sergeant Hopkins; Unknown Deputy; Loretta Roher; Shane Diedmon; Bill Blanton, Sheriff, Cherokee County; Unknown Deputies; Larry Powers, Administrator; Unknown Sergeant; Unknown Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6531.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2007.
Decided: May 3, 2007.
David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court's orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm based upon the district court's and magistrate judge's conclusions that Sullivan's claims are meritless. See Sullivan v. County of Spartanburg, No. 6:05-cv-01282-HFF (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2006). 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.