UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1682
BRENDA BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CAYCE; M.L. BRAKEFIELD, South Carolina Cayce Police
Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City
of Cayce; W.E. ACKERMAN, South Carolina Cayce Police
Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City
of Cayce; OFFICER POPENHAGEN, South Carolina Cayce Police
Officer, individually and as agent and employee of the City
of Cayce; MASTERS ECONOMY INN, INCORPORATED; ROGER
ARMSTRONG, Manager, individually and as the agent and
employee of Masters Economy Inn, Incorporated,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00333-MJP)
Submitted: March 16, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brenda Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina; Sterling Graydon Davies, Clary Edward Rawl, Jr.,
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Bryant appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and conclude there was no reversible
error in any of the district court’s dispositive rulings.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Bryant v. City of Cayce, No. 3:06-cv-00333-MJP
(D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2007 & May 19, 2010). We further deny as moot
Bryant’s motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the
district court’s resolution of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for reconsideration. Finally, we deny Bryant’s motion for the
appointment of counsel. 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