Altony Brooks v. Michael Johnson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999877756-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-01074-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999956280]. Mailed to: A Brooks. [16-6512]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6512 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6512 ALTONY BROOKS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL JOHNSON, Sheriff; BRENDA LAMBERT, Detective; JUSTIN WHACK, Detective; WAYNE DEWITT, Sheriff; LONNIE ALLEN MIZZELLE, Detective; DANNY MIZZELLE, Detective; JOHN DOE, Officer; KIMBERLY BARR, Solicitor; SHARON W STAGGERS, Clerk; M MORRIS, Clerk, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-01074-PMD) Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: October 27, 2016 Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Altony Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6512 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Altony Brooks appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice, and denying reconsideration. We have reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. reviewed the record and find no Brooks v. Johnson, No. 2:15-cv-01074-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 11 & May 25, 2016). We deny Brooks’ motion to appoint oral facts counsel and materials legal before and dispense with argument contentions are adequately this and argument court because presented would not the in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?