Eddie Taylor v. Dennis Daniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999528391-2] Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03080-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999547150]. Mailed to: Eddie Taylor. [14-7911]

Appeal: 14-7911

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7911

EDDIE LEVORD TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS DANIELS; NURSE GARRISON; NURSE DANIELS; NURSE CURTIS;
MARVIN CASINO; NURSE DANIAL; NURSE GRESSNER; MR.
BURGESS;
MR. BURCH; MR.
SMITH; OFFICER MCCRORY; OFFICER TAYLOR;
OFFICER PURVISH; OFFICER MCLEAN; OFFICER NEUHOFF; OFFICER
STEVENS; OFFICER MERCER; SERGEANT ARTHUR; SERGEANT ELLIS;
SERGEANT ANDRAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03080-BO)

Submitted:

March 12, 2015

Decided:

March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Levord Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Judith Marie Estevez,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ginger
Bagley Hunsucker, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh,
North
Carolina;
Donna
Elizabeth
Tanner,
NORTH
CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7911

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eddie
denying
relief

Levord

his
on

Taylor

motions

his

42

for

U.S.C.

appeals

the

appointment
§ 1983

district
of

(2012)

court’s

counsel

and

complaint.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

orders
denying

We

have

Accordingly,

we deny Taylor’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court.

Taylor v. Daniels, No.

5:13-ct-03080-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2013; May 2, 2014; Dec. 19,
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

2