Bernard McFadden v. Mr. Westley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:12-cv-02392-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999517737]. Mailed to: McFadden. [14-7367]

Appeal: 14-7367

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7367

BERNARD MCFADDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. WESTLEY, Officer of Kirkland’s Law Library; CHRISTOPHER
FLORIAN, SCDC Staff Attorney; DIANE HINGLE, SCDC State
Classification
Officer;
CANDI
L.
CANNON,
SCDC
State
Classification Officer; MRS. YORK, Kershaw Institutional
Classification Officer; MR. EURY, FNU Kershaw Institutional
Classification Officer; MRS. AMASON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MARGARET SULLIVAN, 3d Circuit Court Reporter; MARY WILLIAMS,
SC Assistant Attorney General; CHARLES T. BROOKS, Court
Appointed PCR Attorney; MS. HOUGH, Grievance Coordinator of
Kershaw CI; MS. REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw, in their
individual or personal capacities,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (0:12-cv-02392-JMC)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

January 27, 2015

Appeal: 14-7367

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7367

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard

McFadden

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief

on

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

McFadden
2014).
legal
before

v.

for

the

reasons

Westley,

No.

stated

by

the

0:12-cv-02392-JMC

We

have

Accordingly,

district
(D.S.C.

court.

Aug.

19,

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