Marshall Mitchell v. Mildred Rivera
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for recusal [999760568-2]. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-01949-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999836891]. Mailed to: Marshall Mitchell. [15-7702]
Appeal: 15-7702
Doc: 23
Filed: 05/31/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7702
MARSHALL LEE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILDRED RIVERA, Warden; SEAN ASHLINE, FS Adm; DOCTOR REED;
DOCTOR ENEJE; NURSE RAINWATER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01949-TMC)
Submitted:
May 26, 2016
Decided:
May 31, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Lee Mitchell, Appellant
Bowens, Assistant United States
Carolina, for Appellees.
Pro Se.
Attorney,
Barbara Murcier
Columbia, South
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7702
Doc: 23
Filed: 05/31/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Lee Mitchell appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for reconsideration
of the district court’s July 3, 2014 order dismissing Mitchell’s
Bivens * action against Defendants.
Mitchell has also filed a
motion asking that all Judges of this court recuse themselves
from
his
appeal.
reversible error.
order.
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
Mitchell v. Rivera, No. 4:13-cv-01949-TMC (D.S.C. Oct.
13, 2015).
dispense
We
We also deny Mitchell’s motion for recusal.
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?