Pierce v. Mullins Police Dept

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2468 HENRY PIERCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIMMY ALFORD, JR., individually and as Chief of Mullins Police Department; M. C. PAGE; MICHAEL BETHEA; JACK DAVIS; 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. (CA-00-4004-4-25) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Lake Eric Summers, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Pierce appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in Pierce’s action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). In the briefing order, Pierce was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Pierce failed to challenge the jury’s verdict in favor of Appellees Davis and Willis, the district court’s decision to direct a verdict in favor of Appellees Page and Bullard, or the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of the remaining Appellees. Instead, on appeal, Pierce asserted claims of misconduct by his counsel. However, the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel does not apply in civil cases. See MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988); Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 - 2 -