Franklin C. REAVES, Reverend, PhD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark RICHARDSON, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Marion County; Albert Woodbury, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Marion County; Levon Nichols, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Marion County; Bobby L. Crawford, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Marion County; Tim Harper, Individually and as Administrator of Marion County; Willie D. Reaves; City of Marion; Town of Sellers; Hybert N. Strickland, Individually and in her official capacity; Donna Owens, Individually and in her official capacity; C. Smith, Individually and in his official capacity as deputy sheriff of Marion County, Defendants-Appellees, and Sherry Rhodes, individually and in her official capacity as Marion County Clerk of Court; Jerry Vinson, Individually and in his official capacity as Family Court Judge; Marion County Sheriffs Department; Marion County Jail; William Young, Individually and in his official capacity as Family Court Judge; Luvenia Wright, Mayor of Town of Sellers; Bobby Gerald, Mayor of City of Marion; South Carolina Department of Social Services, Defendants

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2012-04-24No. No. 11-2339

471 F. App'x 251

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a stay and to alter or amend the court’s prior order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action and accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the motions for attorney’s fees filed by several Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reaves v. Richardson, No. 4:09-cv-00820-TLW-SVH, 2011 WL 5321013 (D.S.C. Nov. 3, 2011). 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.

Because Reaves filed his motion for reconsideration of the courts order dismissing his § 1983 action within the twenty-eight-day time limit for motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), we treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. Katyle v. Penn Natl Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 n. 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 115, 181 L.Ed.2d39 (2011).