Michael Ferola v. Officer Fulton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:13-cv-02413-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016733]. Mailed to: Michael J. Ferola. [16-7212]

Appeal: 16-7212

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7212

MICHAEL J. FEROLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER FULTON,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR.; GREGORY KNOWLIN; KENNETH SHARP;
WILLIE
EAGLETON;
MARIA
LEGGINS;
JERRY
ADGER;
MRS
BRACKENBERRY; ANN HALLMAN; CAPTAIN ROGERS; LT POWELL; LT
BRAYBOY; LT WHEELER; CPL MILLER; CPL CONYERS; MICHAEL
BOWERS; MAJOR
WEST; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SELLERS; ASSOCIATE
WARDEN MCFADDEN; MS GRAVES, IGC, Evans,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(9:13-cv-02413-RBH)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-7212

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Michael J. Ferola, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Arlene Thomas,
THOMPSON & HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7212

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Ferola filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
asserting claims of denial of access to the courts and failure
to protect.
judge’s

recommendation

defendants
surviving

The district court accepted in part the magistrate

on

and

Ferola’s

failure

to

granted

access

protect

to
claim

the

summary
courts

against

judgment
claims.

to
The

Defendant

Fulton

proceeded to trial and the jury ruled in Fulton’s favor.

Ferola

appeals the denial of relief on his claims.
the

record

affirm.

and

find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed
Accordingly,

we

Ferola v. Fulton, No. 9:13-cv-02413-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 3,

2015 & Aug. 23, 2016).

We dispense 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

3