Court Opinion

ID: 9956792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:53.659454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.418981
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1924      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1924

        JEROME GARCIA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        A. K. ENZOR, State Trooper; WILLIE MCCAULEY, JR., SC Trooper,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:21-cv-01359-MGL)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jerome Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, P.A.,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1924         Doc: 12     Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Jerome Garcia appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge in part, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

        Garcia’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, dismissing the illegal search claim with

        prejudice, and dismissing the false arrest and imprisonment claims without prejudice

        pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We have reviewed the record and

        find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Garcia’s motion to remand and affirm the

        district court’s judgment.      Garcia v. Enzor, No. 3:21-cv-01359-MGL (D.S.C.

        Aug. 25, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2