Henry Martin, Jr. v. Myecha Miley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-03516-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738699]. Mailed to: Martin. [15-7726]

Appeal: 15-7726

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7726

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CPT MYECHA MILEY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
WILLIAM R. BYARS; JOHN R. PATE; ARTHUR A. JORDAN; MCKENNDLY
NEWTON; ROBERT E. WARD; JON OZMINT; DENNIS PATTERSON;
DANIEL MURPHY; DAVID M. TATARSKY; LT J. CARUJO; LT J.
CARTER; ROBERT ORR; LT JAMES RUMP; CAPTAIN E. J. MILLER;
DR. THOMAS BYNSE; LT VARLEASE BLACK; CPL L. JENKINS; M.
HUDSON; S. SINGLATON, DHO; CPL T. SIMPSON; MR. MCQUEEN; P.
SMITH; A. HOLLMAN; HELEN FREEMAN; THOMAS SCOTT; CPT E.
JAMES; TANYA A. GEE; V. CLAIRE ALLEN; JOHN C. FEW; WAYNE C.
MCCABE; JILL BEATTIE; JEANNETTE MACK; FRANCINE BAUCHMAN;
PATTY BRITT POSEY; JAMES S. SLIGH, JR.; DR.
ROWLAND;
GREGORY S. LINE; CHARLOTTE SMITH; ELLEN GOODWIN; RUSSELL
RUSH; JIM CROSBY; SUSAN BARDEN; VIRGINIA CROCKER; PAM
SMITH; LAKETA DIKA; DEBORAH B. DURDEN,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cv-03516-TMC)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Appeal: 15-7726

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Freeman, Sr.,
GRIFFITH, SHARP & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7726

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Henry W. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous
order

denying

complaint.
error.

relief

on

Martin’s

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.
Oct. 8, 2015).

Martin v. Miley, No. 6:13-cv-03516-TMC (D.S.C.
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