Darrell J. Mickell v. Bryan Stirling


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-04656-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000171965]. Mailed to: Darrell J. Mickell LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010-2021. [17-6282]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6282 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6282 DARRELL J. MICKELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR. DAVIS; MR. SHARPE; MR. GRAHAM; MR. NOLAN; MR. WILLIAMS; MS. SHAW; MS. SMITH, 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-04656-RBH) Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell J. Mickell, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6282 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Darrell J. Mickell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Mickell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and the magistrate judge’s orders denying his motions to appoint counsel and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mickell v. Stirling, No. 6:15-cv-04656-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2015; Jan. 25, 2016; Sept. 13, 2016; Feb. 15, 2017). 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

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?