Michael Ray v. James Metts

Filing 920100503

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7759

MICHAEL R. RAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES METTS, Sheriff Lexington County Sheriff's Department; JIMMY GREGG; MIKE D. ILLES, Administrator Florence County Detention Center; JUNE STEWART, Employee FCDC; FLORENCE COUNTY, A Body Politic; LEXINGTON COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cv-23048-TLW)

Submitted:

April 29, 2010

Decided:

May 3, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, David Leon Morrison, MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Benjamin Albert Baroody, BELLAMY, RUTENBURG, COPELAND, EPPS, GRAVELY & BOWERS, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Jay Ritchie Lee, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Michael allowing Appellees R. to Ray appeals a the district court's of order Death,

file

corrected

Suggestion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, and its adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). the Specifically, district as to the of second order, Ray

challenges

court's

grant

summary

judgment

without considering his motion for summary judgment and after allegedly restricting his ability to undertake discovery. affirm both orders. We find no abuse of the district court's discretion in allowing the Suggestion of Death to be corrected by Appellees to conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, especially given that Ray failed to demonstrate how the purported error affected any of his We

substantial rights.

Nor do we find any abuse of the district

court's discretion relative to discovery prior to its adoption of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Strag v. Bd. of

Trs., 55 F.3d 943, 952-53 (4th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). *

Ray's assertion of district court error in failing to consider his motion for summary judgment is without merit. The magistrate judge specifically reviewed Ray's motion and found, correctly, that it merely constituted a request for additional discovery.

*

3

Accordingly, allowing the

we

affirm the

the

district of

court's Death,

order its

correction of

Suggestion

and

dismissal of Ray's action on summary judgment, on the reasoning of the district court. 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

4