Cory Simpson v. Officer Kapeluck


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998362487-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00021 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998474274] [10-6740]

Download PDF
Cory Simpson v. Officer Kapeluck Doc. 0 Case: 10-6740 Document: 24 Date Filed: 11/30/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6740 CORY ANTHONY SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER KAPELUCK; C. J. HOWELL, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00021) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 30, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cory Anthony Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Deering Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6740 Document: 24 Date Filed: 11/30/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Cory Anthony Simpson appeals the district court's order declining to accept the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to prosecute, and granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the merits of the action. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 2:09-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, Simpson v. Kapeluck, No. 2010). We further deny Simpson's motion for appointment of counsel. oral argument because in the the facts and legal We dispense with contentions the court are and adequately presented materials before 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?