UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1774
CHRIS HOLLOMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH SC; ROBERT STARR,
individually as an officer with the Myrtle
Beach Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cv-01868-TLW)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Christopher Mills, J. CHRISTOPHER MILLS, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Cynthia Graham Howe, BATTLE & VAUGHT,
P.A., Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chris Holloman appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Myrtle Beach and
Officer Robert Starr on Holloman’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v.
Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.
1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Holloman v. City of
Myrtle Beach, No. 4:04-cv-01868-TLW (D.S.C. June 8, 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
*
Subsequent to the filing of Holloman’s notice of appeal, the
district court granted Holloman’s motion to correct the judgment.
The district court entered an amended judgment declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Holloman’s state law claims
and remanding those claims to state court. That order is not at
issue in this appeal.
- 2 -