George Cleveland, III v. Judge Daniel Hall


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to accept as timely filed the informal brief [999907305-2] Originating case number: 6:15-cv-04384-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999975664]. Mailed to: G. Cleveland, III. [16-6838]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6838 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6838 GEORGE CLEVELAND, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE DANIEL D. HALL, in his official capacity as Circuit Court Judge of South Carolina; KAREN C. RATIGAN, in her official capacity as Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:15-cv-04384-RBH) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Cleveland, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6838 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: George Cleveland, III, 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. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Cleveland v. Hall, No. 6:15-cv-04384-RBH (D.S.C. May 18, 2016). We grant Cleveland’s motion to accept as timely filed his informal brief, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not 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?