Case Name: George CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry W. ABERNATHY, Major, in his official capacities as Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the City of Clemson, South Carolina; Buford E. Trent, a/k/a Butch, in his official capacities as Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Clemson, South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-04
Citations: 330 F. App'x 39
Docket Number: No. 09-1471
Parties: George CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry W. ABERNATHY, Major, in his official capacities as Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the City of Clemson, South Carolina; Buford E. Trent, a/k/a Butch, in his official capacities as Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Clemson, South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 330
Pages: 39–39

Head Matter:
George CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry W. ABERNATHY, Major, in his official capacities as Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the City of Clemson, South Carolina; Buford E. Trent, a/k/a Butch, in his official capacities as Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Clemson, South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2009.
George Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., Logan, Jolly & Smith, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Cleveland appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and a subsequent order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cleveland v. Abernathy, No. 8:08-cv-00517-HMH, 2009 WL 799652 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 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.