Calvin Gaddy v. Captain DeGeorgi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999602937-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01586-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999671067]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-6660]

Appeal: 15-6660

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6660

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN DEGEORGIS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
NIKKI R. HALEY, South Carolina Governor; BILL BYERS, SCDC
Commissioner; WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, Perry CI; FLORENCE
MAUNEY, Perry CI, SMU; MAJOR EARLY, Perry CI, SMU,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (8:13-cv-01586-BHH)

Submitted:

September 29, 2015

Decided:

October 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.
James Victor McDade,
DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-6660

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6660

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Calvin

Lyndale

Gaddy

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
confine

our

brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

does

not

review

to

challenge

the

the

issues

raised

in

On appeal, we

the

Appellant’s

Because Gaddy’s informal brief

basis

for

the

district

court’s

disposition, Gaddy has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
order.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny Gaddy’s motion to appoint counsel.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

court

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3