The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-7380•John Willie Mack, Jr. v. JOHN DAVID BURGESS, Spartanburg City Police, In his Individual
15-7380Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 9, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7380
JOHN WILLIE MACK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DAVID BURGESS, Spartanburg City Police, In his
Individual and Official Capacities; GEORGE DAVID REEVES,
Custodian of Evidence For the Spartanburg City Police
Department, In His Individual and Official Capacities;
MANUEL J. ORTUNO, Forensics Analyst of South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division, In His Individual and Official
Capacities; ANTHONY C. LEIBERT, Solicitor and State Attorney
for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official
Capacities; BARRY JOE BARNETTE, Solicitor and State Attorney
for Spartanburg County/City, In His Individual and Official
Capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-02128-DCN)
Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Willie Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
John Willie Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint.∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Mack v. Burgess, No. 9:15-cv-02128-DCN (D.S.C.
Aug. 17, 2015). 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
∗ We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.