Terrence Tate v. Billy Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00616-TDS-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999427064]. Mailed to: Terrence Tate. [14-6508]

Appeal: 14-6508

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6508

TERRENCE EDMOND TATE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BILLY MARTIN,
Manager; JOHN
Examiner,

Head of Medical; J. KELLY, Tillery Unit
DOE; KENNETH M. JONES, Inmate Grievance

Defendants - Appellees,
and
MR. JONES, Physician; MR. JONES; DR. SAMI HASAN; JENNIFER
LANGLEY; LEWIS O. SMITH; BURLESON; HUDSON; BURNS; EUDG; JOHN
DOE #1; WALH; EUBERT; ALMOND; ROCKY HONEYCUTT; KELLY
TILLERY; KENDDAL; MS. LUTHER; MORRISON; JANE DOE #1; JANE
DOE #2; HILDRETH TILLERY; BOYD BENNETT; ROBERT C. LEWIS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00616-TDS-JLW)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-6508

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Terrence Edmond Tate, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Yvette Harper,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6508

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terrence

Edmond

Tate

appeals

the

magistrate

judge’s

order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel, the
district court’s text order denying Tate’s motions to compel,
and the district court’s final order denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

Tate v. Martin, No. 1:10-

cv-00616-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 10, 2012; Jan. 3, 2014; Mar. 20,
2014).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3