Teddy Pyatt v. William Byar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:12-cv-00266-DCN-BM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998927144]. Mailed to: appellant. [12-6914]

Appeal: 12-6914

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6914

TEDDY PYATT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYARS, South Carolina Dept of Corr Commissioner;
ROBERT E. WARD, Deputy Dir Div of Operations, in their Ofc
and Ind Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:12-cv-00266-DCN-BM)

Submitted:

August 23, 2012

Decided:

August 29, 2012

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teddy Pyatt, Appellant Pro Se.
Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6914

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Teddy

Pyatt

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
his motion for a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006).
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

district

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
court.

Pyatt

(D.S.C. May 1, 2012).

v.

Byars,

No.

9:12-cv-00266-DCN-BM

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

2