Taylor v. Todd ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1372
    CAROLYN YVONNE MURPHY TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    WALTER TODD, Esq., in his official capacity as Assistant City
    Attorney and his individual capacity; DANA MARIE THYE, Esq.,
    in her official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her
    individual capacity; HUNTER P. SWANSON, Esq., in her official
    capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her individual
    capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    CHARLES AUSTIN, in his official capacity as City Manager and his
    individual capacity; DONNIE BALZEIGLER, in his official capacity as
    Code Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity; CITY OF
    COLUMBIA, LARRY MCCALL, in his official capacity as Chief Code
    Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity.
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM)
    Submitted:   August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 25, 2008
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon
    Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor appeals the district court’s
    order accepting in part and declining in part the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation, and dismissing her action filed under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) and the South Carolina Torts Claims Act.          We
    have     reviewed   the   record   and   find   no   reversible    error.
    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.    Taylor v. Todd, No. 3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Feb. 29,
    2008).    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1372

Filed Date: 8/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021