James Giles v. Doctor Allan Wall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998685138-2] Originating case number: 0:10-cv-00959-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780399]. Mailed to: Giles. [11-7156]

Appeal: 11-7156

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7156

JAMES A. GILES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR ALLAN WALLS; DOCTOR
POILETMAN; MRS. AMY ENLOE,

EILLEN

DELANEY;

DOCTOR

ROBERT

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:10-cv-00959-DCN)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Giles, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7156

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 2

Giles

district

PER CURIAM:
James

A.

appeals

the

court’s

orders

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 motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Giles v. Walls, No. 0:10-cv-00959-DCN

(D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011; Aug. 17, 2011; Aug. 24, 2011).
Giles’

motion

to

appoint

counsel.

We

dispense

We deny

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