Rodney David Young v. South Carolina Department


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-02247-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999557845]. Mailed to: Young. [14-7608]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-7608 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7608 RODNEY DAVID YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LIEUTENANT PATRICK; CAPTAIN WRIGHT; OFFICER SABRINA RISHER; OFFICER JEFFREY MOSLEY; MS. VALERIE JACKSON; MS. J. BROWN; SERGEANT GREEN; WARDEN LEVERN COHEN, et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:14-cv-02247-TMC) Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney David Young, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-7608 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Rodney David Young 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. claim challenging the propriety of his As to Young’s prison disciplinary proceeding, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Young v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. 1:14-cv-02247-TMC (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2014). Young has forfeited appellate review of his remaining claims by failing to raise them in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 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?