WRIGHT v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor, Respondent. (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Reed Anthony Kevin WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rayena SHEPPARD-OSWALD; Brian Oswald; Heather Hubert, in her individual and official capacities; Sergeant Scott Matheny, in his individual and official capacities; Officer M. Smoak, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, Greenville County Sheriff's Department; Carolina Children's House; Anthony Wrifford, in his individual and official capacities; Dickerson Center for Children, now known as Dickerson Children's Advocacy Center Inc.; Jane Hemphill, in her individual and official capacities; Cayce Public Safety Department; Officer Drew Pinciaro, in his individual and official capacities; Greenville Rape Crisis Center, now known as Julie Valentine Center; Shauna Galloway, a/k/a Shauna Galloway-Williams, in her individual and official capacities; WYFF4 Greenville; Hearst Communications, Inc.; Hearst Properties Inc., Defendants, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor, Respondent.

No. 17-6453

Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Donald L. Smith, DONALD SMITH LAW FIRM, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Carly Davis, CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; A. Johnston Cox, Janice Holmes, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Reed Anthony Kevin Wright appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants on Wright's third amended complaint alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution, in violation of South Carolina law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Sheppard-Oswald, No. 6:14-cv-04646-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 9 & 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law