Therl Taylor v. Catherine Amason

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-03449-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802733]. Mailed to: Therl Taylor RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 2039 Ridgeland, SC 29936-0000. [15-7807]

Appeal: 15-7807

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7807

THERL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE AMASON, SCDC Mailroom Supervisor; MISHA MICHELLE,
Mailroom Attendant; WAYNE THOMPSON, SCDC Lieutenant; A.
SELLARS, SCDC Disciplinary Hearing Officer; D. SEWARD, SCDC
Major; JEANNE MCKAY, SCDC Associate Warden; JANE DOES,
Employee; JANE CHISUM, CO; JOHN EVRY, CO; CHRIS FLORIAN,
SCDC Office of General Counsel Attorney; WILLIAM BYERS, SCDC
Director,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JON DOES, Inmate; SCDC,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-03449-RMG)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April 25, 2016

Appeal: 15-7807

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Therl Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Roy F. Laney, Thomas Lowndes
Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY,
LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7807

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Therl Taylor 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, its order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and the magistrate judge’s order
denying as moot his discovery motion.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Taylor v. Amason, No.

2:13-cv-03449-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2015; Oct. 14, 2015; Nov.
18, 2014).
legal
before

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