Henry Pierce v. City of Mullins Police Departm, No. 09-2213 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2213 HENRY PIERCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIMMY ALFORD, JR., Individually and as Chief of Mullins Police Department; M. C. PAGE, Individually and as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; MICHAEL BETHEA, Individually and as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; JACK DAVIS, Individually and as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; BILL BULLARD, Individually and as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department; BENJAMIN WILLIS, Individually and as an employee of the City of Mullins Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:00-cv-04004-TLW) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton D. Lide, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Katherine Anne Phillips, Lake E. Summers, MALONE, THOMPSON, Carolina, for Appellees. SUMMERS & OTT, Columbia, South Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Henry Pierce appeals the district court s order denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), in which he sought a new trial on his excessive force claims. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pierce v. City of Mullins Police Dep t, No. 4:00-cv-04004-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2009). 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.
