Stanley Moultrie v. William Byars, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-01690-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999763941]. Mailed to: S. Moultrie. [15-7358]

Appeal: 15-7358

Doc: 14

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7358

STANLEY LEE MOULTRIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYARS, JR., South Carolina Department of Corrections
Director; BRYAN P. STIRLING; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALAN WILSON; DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WARD; SCDC GENERAL
COUNSEL DAYNE HAILE; CHRISTOPHER FLORIAN; ANN HALLMAN, Agency
Grievance
Coordinator;
MARIA
LEGGINS,
Agency
Mailroom
Coordinator; WILLIE EAGLETON, Evan Warden; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
MCFADDEN; MAJOR C. WEST; BETHEA LT. MICHAEL TOMS; MS. BAKER,
Mailroom Coordinator; MS. GRAVES, ECI Grievance Coordinator;
PAMELA MCDOWELL, Mailroom Supervisor; LT. JAMES MARTIN; SGT. H.
SIMS; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BUSH, Lee CI; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NOLAN;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN DEAN; K. RIVERS, Lee CI Grievance Coordinator;
JIMMY SLEIGH; DEPUTY WARDEN; LT. JACK BROWN; MS. CONYERS, Lee CI
Officer; GENERAL COUNSEL TATARSKY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR MCCALL; AMY
SMITH; D. EASTRIDGE; FELICIA MCQUEEN; SANDRA BOWIE; DEPUTY
WARDEN DAVIS; CAPTAIN THOMAS; MS. WILSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-01690-DCN)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-7358

Doc: 14

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lee Moultrie, Appellant Pro Se.
Jerome Scott Kozacki,
WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7358

Doc: 14

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stanley
adopting

Lee

the

Moultrie

magistrate

appeals

the

judge’s

district

recommendation

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
confine

our

brief.

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

brief

does

not

disposition,
court’s

before

to

the

challenge

Moultrie

order.

judgment.
legal

review

has

issues

the

raised

in

and

order

denying

On appeal, we

the

appellant’s

Because Moultrie’s informal

basis

for

forfeited

Accordingly,

court’s

we

the

district

appellate

affirm

the

review

district

court’s
of

the

court’s

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

3