Cordero v. City of Columbia

Full title: JOHNNIE CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, The, South…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 21, 2013

543 F. App'x 334 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6671

2013-10-21

JOHNNIE CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, The, South Carolina; JOSEPH H. TIMMONS, III, individually and in his official capacity as Risk Manager of the City of Columbia South Carolina also known as Chip; HATTIE M. BING, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Director of the City of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation; S. ALISON BAKER, individually and in his official capacity as Senior Assistant City Manager and Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation of the City of Columbia South Carolina; JACQUE GILLIAM, individually; PAMELA BENJAMIN, in her official capacity as Director of Human Resources for the City of Columbia South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees, and JACQUE GILLIAM, in his official capacity as Director of Human Resources for the City of Columbia South Carolina, Defendant.

Johnnie Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-02502-JFA) Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Cordero appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cordero's complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cordero v. City of Columbia, No. 3:11-cv-02502-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2013). 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