eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2000-08

Moore v. City of Sumter ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1169
JOE EDWARD MOORE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF SUMTER, SOUTH CAROLINA; PERRY REGIS-
TER, Personnel Director; HAROLD B. JOHNSON,
Chief; PATTY JAYE PATTERSON, Major; AL B.
ATKINSON, Captain,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-3410-3-10)
Submitted:   June 20, 2000                 Decided:   August 1, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Edward Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Kathryn Thomas, GIG-
NILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joe Edward Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 2000) complaint.    We have reviewed the record
and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error with re-
spect to the grant of summary judgment to the individual Defen-
dants.   See City of Dallas v. Stanglin,
    490 U.S. 19
    , 25 (1989);
Fogarty v. Boles,
    121 F.3d 886
    , 890 (3d Cir. 1997); Wagner v.
Wheeler,
    13 F.3d 86
    , 90-91 (4th Cir. 1993). Moreover, because Moore
fails to identify any unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice
of the City of Sumter, South Carolina, we find the district court
properly granted summary judgment to the City to the extent Moore
attempted to rely upon a respondeat superior theory.      Monell v.
Department of Social Servs.,
    436 U.S. 658
    , 694 (1978); Jackson v.
Long,
    102 F.3d 722
    , 731 (4th Cir. 1996).   Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court.   See Moore v. City of Sumter,
No. CA-98-3410-3-10 (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2000).   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
2