Michael Prozer, III v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999556308-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999548422-2]; denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999546543-2] Originating case number: 9:14-cv-01249-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999575855]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-7798]

Appeal: 14-7798

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7798

MICHAEL ANTHONY PROZER, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-01249-TMC)

Submitted:

April 28, 2015

Decided:

May 1, 2015

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Prozer, III, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7798

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Prozer, III, appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012).

We have

reviewed the issues Prozer raises in his informal opening and
supplemental briefs and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

Accordingly,

district

court. *

Prozer v. United States, No. 9:14-cv-01249-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 25,
2014).

We deny Prozer’s motion to stay his appeal and his

motions for injunctive relief.

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

*

Prozer argues that the district court assessed his
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), citing one such
reference on the judgment form.
But the magistrate judge and
the district court properly analyzed Prozer’s claims under the
Federal Tort Claims Act.
The error on the judgment form is
plainly a clerical one.

2