Launeil Sanders v. Henry McMaster, No. 08-1671 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1671 LAUNEIL SANDERS; JANNETH SANDERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. HENRY MCMASTER, State of South Carolina Authorized Agent, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, SC Attorney General; TREY GOWDY, State of South Carolina, SC 7th Solicitor; MARK KITCHENS; DAVID INGALLS; DAVID ALFORD; PREPAID LEGAL, INC., Its Authorized Representative Counsel Berry, Quackenbush, and Stuart, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-03510-GRA-WMC) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 16, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Launeil Sanders, Janneth Sanders, Appellants Pro Se. Mary Frances G. Jowers, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Edwin Calhoun Haskell, III, SMITH & HASKELL, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, Appellees; David Griffith Ingalls, Appellee Pro Se. for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Launeil district Sanders and Janneth court s order accepting the Sanders appeal recommendation of the the magistrate judge and granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, David Alford, Henry McMaster, and the State of South Carolina. In their informal appellate brief, the Sanders failed to challenge the district court s reasons supporting the denial of relief. Accordingly, the Sanders have forfeited appellate review of those issues. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ( The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief. ). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court s order. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.