Chronister v. Metts

Filing 920061031


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6553 ALAN DALE CHRONISTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES R. SERVICES, METTS, Sheriff; PRISON HEALTH Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge; Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (2:04-cv-22848-HMH) Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 31, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan Dale Chronister, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alan Dale Chronister appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Chronister's motion to appoint counsel, the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint, and the district court's order denying Chronister's motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm those orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Chronister v. Metts, No. 2:04-cv-22848-HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005; Mar. 28, 2006). Turning to the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying 1983 relief, we note that Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court's rejection of his claims in his informal appellate brief. Thus, he has waived appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). We deny Chronister's motion to appoint counsel and 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?