Launeil Sanders v. Henry McMaster, No. 09-1664 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Certiorari dismissed, January 11, 2010 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1664 LAUNEIL SANDERS; JANNETH SANDERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. HENRY MCMASTER, State of South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) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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; David Griffith Ingalls, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Launeil court s order and Janneth accepting the Sanders appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing Sanders 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against Prepaid Legal, Inc and denying Sanders motion for leave to file another complaint against Prepaid Legal, Inc. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. McMaster, No. 7:07-cv-03510-GRA (D.S.C. May 27, 2009). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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.