Marcus Allison v. Tom Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999523810-2]; terminating Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999523808-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00668-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999590477]. Mailed to: Marcus Allen. [15-6155]

Appeal: 15-6155

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6155

MARCUS DANIEL ALLISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TOM MARTIN, County of Oconee SC by Atty; DEPUTY SOL DAVID
WAGNER, Oconee Co; CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER WILSON BURR, Oconee
Co; CORPORAL JARRETT PRICE, O.C.S.O.; SERGEANT CASEY
BOWLING,
O.C.S.O.;
JAMES
SINGLETON,
Retired
Sheriff,
O.C.S.O.;
ELIZABETH
HOLCOMB,
M.D.
Lieber
Correctional
Institution; jointly, individually and in their official
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE, a/k/a Sheriff, O.C.S.O.; RON DOE, jointly; DON
DOE, jointly, individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00668-RBH)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

May 27, 2015

Appeal: 15-6155

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Marcus Daniel Allison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6155

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marcus Daniel Allison appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Allison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

Allison

also appeals the district court’s subsequent text order denying
reconsideration.

We

have

reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
(D.S.C.

Nov.

24,

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Allison v. Martin, No. 1:14-cv-00668-RBH

2014;

Dec.

19,

2014).

We

further

deny

Allison’s motion to appoint counsel and deny as unnecessary his
motion for a certificate of appealability.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3