Simon Allen, Jr. v. Paul Lee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-00504-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646822]. Mailed to: Simon Allen Jr.. [15-6654]

Appeal: 15-6654

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6654

SIMON ALLEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT PAUL LEE, in his private and official
capacity; SPECIAL AGENT EARL GILLIAM, in his private and
official capacity; RAC SCOTT BAILEY, in his private and
official capacity; ASST US ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. WATKINS, JR.,
in his private and official capacity; PROBATION OFFICER
ROBERT F. WOODS, in his private and official capacity; US
ATTORNEY WILLIAM N. NETTLES, in his private and official
capacity; PUBLIC DEFENDER LORA C. BLANCHARD, in her private
and official capacity; COURTROOM DEPUTY PAMELA BRISSEY, in
her private and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00504-RMG)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

August 25, 2015

Appeal: 15-6654

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6654

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Simon

Allen,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his
civil

action

against

Defendants

after

a

review,

pursuant

to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A(b)(1) (2012).

We have reviewed the

record

Accordingly,

and

find

no

reversible

error.

we

deny

Allen’s motion for a transcript at government expense and affirm
the district court’s judgment.

Allen v. Lee, No. 8:15-cv-00504-

RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2015).

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

3