Alfred LaSure v. SC Mental Health

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999997755-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999949805-2]. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-01357-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016867]. Mailed to: Alfred LaSure. [16-7338]

Appeal: 16-7338

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7338

ALFRED WILLIAM LASURE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SC
MENTAL
HEALTH;
CYNTHIA
HELFF,
Program
Director,
Individually and in her Official Capacity; JOHN MCGILL, State
Director, In his Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-01357-RBH)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred LaSure, Appellant Pro Se.
Charles Albert Kinney, Jr.,
Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7338

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alfred William LaSure appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as modified,
and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

LaSure v.

SC Mental Health, No. 9:15-cv-01357-RBH (D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2016).
In light of this disposition, we deny as moot the Appellees’ motion
to strike LaSure’s second informal opening brief and amended
informal opening brief.

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

2