Broten v. Charleston County, No. 06-6331 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6331 JAMES M. BROTEN, a/k/a Jim Broten, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; J. ALTON CANNON, JR., Sheriff; ROLAND H. WINDHAM, JR., Charleston County Administrator; CHIEF DEPUTY K. P. NOVAK, Chief Jailor; OFFICER CCDC OFFICER FORRESTER; OFFICER CCDC OFFICER TIPTON; UNKNOWN, CCDC Tag Team Officers; UNKNOWN, CCDC Nurse Betty; JOHN DOES, unknown CCDC officers, Defendants - Appellees, and US MARSHALS; D. LYNES, a/k/a D. Lyons, Interim Chief United States Marshalls Service, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:04-cv-01413-RBH) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Broten, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Michael J. Ferri, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Holmes Hood, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Gerald Chambers, Jr., Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER & PADGETT, Charleston, South Carolina; Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: James M. Broten appeals the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Broten v. Charleston County Det. Ctr., No. 8:04-cv-01413-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2006). 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.