Michael James v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999872684-2] Originating case number: 9:15-cv-00625-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999950444]. Mailed to: Michael James. [16-6609]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6609 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6609 MICHAEL D. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; SCOTT LEWIS, Assistant Warden of Security; NFN MURSIER, Major of Security; OFFICER GOBLE, #051041, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (9:15-cv-00625-TLW) Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: October 19, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. James, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6609 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 James the PER CURIAM: Michael D. appeals district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to defendants § 1983 (2012) complaint. no reversible error. stated by the and dismissing appointment U.S.C. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons district of 42 We have reviewed the record and find court. James 9:15-cv-00625-TLW (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2016). for his counsel and dispense v. Cartledge, No. We deny James’ motion 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 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?