Ricky Sanders, Sr. v. County of Sumter, No. 08-6434 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6434 RICKY D. SANDERS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUMTER, care of William T. Noonan; COUNTY OF LEE, care of Jimmy Lacoste; DOCTOR WHITAKER, SLRDC Physician; SOUTHEASTERN SERVICE GROUP, INCORPORATED, care of Annette Stalvy; SIMON MAJOR, Director of SLRDC; LIEUTENANT NANCY MCMILLIN, Shift Head Supervisor; C.O. BRUNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:06-cv-01670-MBS) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON. Senior Circuit Judges. Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; John Evans James, III, JOHN E. JAMES II LAW OFFICE, Winnsboro, South Carolina; Lucy Grey Wilson McIver, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina; Kathleen Devereaux Cauthen, CAUTHEN LAW FIRM, Blythewood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. County of Sumter, No. 0:06-cv-01670-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 4, 2008 & entered Mar. 5, 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 * Because Sanders specifically objected to only one aspect of the report of the magistrate judge after proper notice of the need to file specific objections, only that issue is preserved for our review. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007) - 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.