UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6583
TERRY CHARLES JENKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; JAMES
METTS, Lexington County Sheriff; HARRY E.
PHILLIPS, JR.; CARLISLE MCNAIR, Lieutenant;
SCOTTIE FRIER, Investigator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-00-2722)
Submitted: September 22, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Charles Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh,
Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry Charles Jenkins appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and motion
to reconsider. Jenkins alleged that his rights were violated
because a conversation with his attorney was videotaped by the
Defendants at the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department without his
knowledge. The portion of the videotape at issue was approximately
twenty seconds long. The district court, accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, denied relief on Jenkins’ claims. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, with regard to Jenkins’ claims that
the recording violated his Fourth Amendment rights and his due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Jenkins v. Lexington
County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-00-2722 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2003 &
Feb. 26, 2004).
Jenkins also alleged that the recording violated his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We find this claim is without
merit because the portion of the tape at issue was suppressed at
Jenkins’ criminal trial, the audio portion of the tape could not be
discerned, and, at a post-trial hearing on the matter, neither
Jenkins nor his counsel could recall anything prejudicial being
discussed during the conversation. Thus, under Weatherford v.
Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558 (1977), Jenkins has failed to establish
- 2 -
a Sixth Amendment violation. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal
of this claim on the basis of the Supreme Court’s opinion in
Weatherford.
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 -