Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

PENLAND v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG, 302 Fed.Appx. 219 (4th Cir. 2008)

Charles W. PENLAND, Sr.; Mary Penland, Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG, South Carolina; State of South Carolina; Jerry Saad, Court Appointed Receiver; RMC Office of Spartanburg County, South Carolina; South Carolina Department of Revenue, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1925.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: November 20, 2008.
Decided: November 25, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03288-HMH).

Charles W. Penland, Sr., and Mary Penland, Appellants Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Penland, Sr., and Mary Penland appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Penland v. County of Spartanburg, No. 6:07-cv-03288-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 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.

Page 220

jdjungle