John Floyd v. City of Spartanburg

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1255 Doc: 49 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1255 JOHN F. FLOYD; GORDON FARMS, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CITY OF SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, Magistrate Judge. 1 (7:20-cv-01305-JDA) Submitted: January 13, 2025 Decided: March 18, 2025 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and Elizabeth W. HANES, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Joseph O. Smith, Joshua J. Hudson, Greenville, South Carolina, Robert P. Coler, SMITH HUDSON LAW, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Giles M. Schanen, Jr., Elizabeth C. Edmonson, MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Greenville, South 1 Jacquelyn Denise Austin was a magistrate judge at the time she decided this case. She has since been commissioned as a district court judge. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1255 Doc: 49 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1255 Doc: 49 Filed: 03/18/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: The question on appeal is whether the magistrate judge 2 below erred in finding that the parties, John Floyd, on behalf of himself and Gordon Farms, and the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina, entered into an enforceable oral contract. Spartanburg appeals the opinion and order of the magistrate judge granting judgment in favor of Floyd and Gordon Farms. The magistrate judge held a four day trial, made extensive factual and legal findings, and found that there was an enforceable contract. We agree. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s opinion and order. Floyd v. City of Spartanburg, No. 7:20-cv-01305-JDA (D.S.C., September 30, 2023). 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 2 The parties consented to a bench trial before a United States magistrate judge. 3