Altony Brooks v. Michael Johnson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?