# Bryson v. Moore

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 24, 2002 · 41 F. App'x 661

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008152

## Case

- **Full name:** William M. BRYSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark C. MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; Regan Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney; Martin Brown, Special Agent for the FBI; ROBERT SCOTT, Special Agent of the FBI; Janet Brown, Internal Revenue Service Agent, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 24, 2002
- **Citations:** 41 F. App'x 661
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Luttig, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008152

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6606

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARK C. MOORE, Assistant United States
Attorney; REGAN PENDLETON, Assistant United
States Attorney; MARTIN BROWN, Special Agent
for the FBI; ROBERT SCOTT, Special Agent of
the FBI; JANET BROWN, Internal Revenue Service
Agent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-82-6-20AK)

Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Bryson v. Moore, No. CA-02-82-6-20AK (D.S.C.

filed Feb. 22, 2002; entered Feb. 25, 2002). 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008152. Public record. Not legal advice.