Case Name: Joseph E. MACON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D.B. Brooks, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; David J. Rogers, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 04-1778
Parties: Joseph E. MACON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D.B. Brooks, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; David J. Rogers, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
Joseph E. MACON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D.B. Brooks, their official capacities as police officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; David J. Rogers, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-1778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2004.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Joseph E. Macon, Appellant pro se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joseph E. Macon appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Macon v. Beddingfield, No. CA-02-3734-8-26-BI (D.S.C. filed June 7, 2004 & entered June 8, 2004). We deny appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal. 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