UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2258
FRANKLIN C. REAVES, Reverend,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MAGGIE WALLACE GLOVER; R. F. DAVIS, Bishop;
TERRY LAW, Reverend; J. CALVIN THOMAS; WILLIE
GLADDEN,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; SOUTH
CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION; EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC
PARTY; FLORENCE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION;
DILLON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; MARK
SANFORD, Governor; MARLBORO COUNTY ELECTION
COMMISSION; MARION COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-04-2171-4-25)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 3, 2005
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin C. Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles,
Columbia, South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General,
Clyde Havird Jones, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, John William
McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Tracey Colton Green, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina; Charlie James Blake, Jr., FLORENCE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Florence, South Carolina; Henry Jerome White, Columbia,
South Carolina; Lucas C. Padgett, Jr., Michael C. Scarafile, MCNAIR
LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Reverend Franklin C. Reaves appeals from the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants and
dismissing his complaint* in which he alleged violations of the
Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as applied through the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1971, 1973, 1973c (2000)), and the Due Process Clause and Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Glover v. South
Carolina Democratic Party, No. CA-04-2171-4-25 (D.S.C. Sept. 3,
2004). 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
*
Five other plaintiffs were named in the complaint. Rev.
Reaves is the only plaintiff who appeals.
- 3 -