Terry Campbell v. Ingles Market

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-01701-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646819]. Mailed to: Terry Douglas Campbell CATAWBA WORK CAMP 1030 Milling Road Rock Hill, SC 29730. [15-6606]

Appeal: 15-6606

Doc: 37

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6606

TERRY DOUGLAS CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INGLES MARKET, Ingles Store 92; MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER FOLK;
TRAVIS TODD KING; KENNITH HAMMETT; NATHANIEL MARK RAINEY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SPTG CO SHERIFFS DEPT; JOHN ALLEN PUTMAN,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-01701-BHH)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Douglas Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Miller Snyder,
CLARKSON WALSH TERRELL & COULTER, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina; James Adam Russell, Wilson Scarborough Sheldon,

Appeal: 15-6606

Doc: 37

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

WILLSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6606

Doc: 37

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terry Douglas Campbell appeals the district court’s orders
accepting

the

recommendations

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and the
court’s

order

affirming

the

magistrate

Campbell’s motions to compel discovery.
record and find no reversible error.

judge’s

denial

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Campbell v. Hammett,

No. 7:13-cv-01701-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 26, 2014; Mar. 30, 2015).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

of

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3