Isiah James, Jr. v. C. Jackson

Filing 920091106

Certiorari dismissed, April 5, 2010

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6521

ISIAH JAMES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. KELLY JACKSON; SAMUEL WATSON; ROBERT WARD; WANDA BONY; CHRISTOPHER FELDER; SHIRLEY SINGLETON; LAVERN COHEN; CHERYL RIDGE; JOHN DOE, of - and scientific testing laboratories; CARL FREDERICK; DANIEL J. MURPHY; BLAKE TAYLOR; REGINA SPANN; JON OZMINT; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C. ANTHONEY BURTON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (9:08-cv-00144-TLW)

Submitted:

October 15, 2009

Decided:

November 6, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Joseph Calhoun Watson, SOWELL, GRAY, STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Isiah James, Jr., appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and the court's order denying his post-judgment motions to alter or amend the judgment complaint. denying his under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and to amend the

James also appeals the magistrate judge's orders motions to recuse and for sanctions. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. James v. Jackson, No. 9:08-cv-00144-TLW

(D.S.C. filed Mar. 26, 2008 & entered Mar. 27, 2008; Sept. 2, 2008; Nov. 5, 2008; Feb. 4, 2009; Feb. 27, 2009). 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

3