Pierce v. Mullins Police Dept ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2468
HENRY PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIMMY
ALFORD, JR., individually and as Chief of
Mullins Police Department; M. C. PAGE; MICHAEL
BETHEA; JACK DAVIS; BILL BULLARD, Individually
and as an employee of the City of Mullins
Police Department; BENJAMIN WILLIS,
Individually and as an employee of the City of
Mullins Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-00-4004-4-25)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Lake Eric
Summers, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Pierce appeals the district court’s judgment in
favor of the defendants in Pierce’s action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). In the briefing order, Pierce was warned
that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised
in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Pierce
failed to challenge the jury’s verdict in favor of Appellees Davis
and Willis, the district court’s decision to direct a verdict in
favor of Appellees Page and Bullard, or the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary
judgment in favor of the remaining Appellees. Instead, on appeal,
Pierce asserted claims of misconduct by his counsel. However, the
Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel does not
apply in civil cases. See MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733,
735 (10th Cir. 1988); Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785
F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
- 2 -