Johnnie Cordero v. City of Columbia, No. 13-6671 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6671 JOHNNIE CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, The, South Carolina; JOSEPH H. TIMMONS, III, individually and in his official capacity as Risk Manager of the City of Columbia South Carolina also known as Chip; HATTIE M. BING, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Director of the City of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation; S. ALISON BAKER, individually and in his official capacity as Senior Assistant City Manager and Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation of the City of Columbia South Carolina; JACQUE GILLIAM, individually; PAMELA BENJAMIN, in her official capacity as Director of Human Resources for the City of Columbia South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees, and JACQUE GILLIAM, in his official capacity as Director Human Resources for the City of Columbia South Carolina, of Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-02502-JFA) Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Johnnie Cordero appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cordero s complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cordero v. City (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2013). of Columbia, No. 3:11-cv-02502-JFA We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
