Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 367 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 09-1442
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
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.
No. 09-1442.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2010.
William C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, Senn, McDonald & Leinback, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; James Chaplin Cox, III, Grier Law Firm, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 2009 WL 824202 (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.