Field v. McMaster

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1957
ARTHUR M. FIELD, PhD.; KATHRYN TAILLON; T. BART KELLEY,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDING LLC, Jerry T. Saad, Receiver for
Capital Investment Funding LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HENRY D. MCMASTER, Individually and as Securities
Commissioner of South Carolina; WILLIAM JOSEPH CONDON, JR.,
Individually and as Assistant Securities Commissioner; TOMMY
WINDSOR, Individually and as Securities Investigator; JOE F.
JORDAN, JR., Individually and as an Investigator of the
Attorney General; JENNIFER EVANS, as personal
representative; LANSING LOGAN, Individually and as a Special
Investigator of the Attorney General; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, State of South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cv-01949-HMH)
Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur M. Field, Kathryn Taillon, T. Bart Kelley, Appellants Pro
Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Kenneth Paul Woodington,
DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina;
Evan Markus Gessner, Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC,
Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Arthur M. Field, Kathryn Taillon, and T. Bart Kelley
appeal the district court’s order adopting in part the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment
in favor of several state employees in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the Appellants’ motion
to file a state transcript as an attachment to their informal
brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Field v. McMaster, No. 6:09-cv-01949-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2010).
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