George Cleveland, III v. Larry Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-04512-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992586]. Mailed to: G. Cleveland. [16-6891]

Appeal: 16-6891

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6891

GEORGE CLEVELAND, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, in their official and individual
capacity; OFFICER I. MAYES, in their official and individual
capacity; OFFICER M. JONES, in their official and individual
capacity; WARDEN (UNKNOWN NAME), in their official and
individual capacity; LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in
their official and individual capacity; OFFICER TYRELL
ADMORE,
in
their
official
and
individual
capacity;
CONTRABAND LT. CHARLES HARTZOG, in their official and
individual capacity; BUSINESS EMPLOYEE T. WAY, in their
official and individual capacity; MACDOUGALL CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, in their official and individual capacity;
OFFICER FRANCINE BACHMAN, in their official and individual
capacity; DIRECTOR BRYAN STIRLING, of the SCDC, in their
official and individual capacity; UNKNOWN NAMES OF THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SCDC, in their official and
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-04512-RBH)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-6891

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Cleveland, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6891

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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. Cartledge, No. 4:15-cv-04512-RBH (D.S.C. May 23,
2016).
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