Curtis King v. Official McPherson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-02358-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089157]. Mailed to: Curtis King. [17-6320]

Appeal: 17-6320

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6320

CURTIS L. KING,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
OFFICIAL MCPHERSON, Lee Corr Inst; SGT BOATWRIGHT, Lee Corr Inst;
CAPT PACK, Turbeville Corr Inst; LT SHANNON, Turbeville Corr Inst;
OFFICER MCELVEEN, Turbeville Corr Inst; OFFICER BARNES, Turbeville
Corr Inst; LT SEIBELS; CAPTAIN WASHINGTON, Broad River Corr Inst,
individual & official capacity et al. known & unknown; SGT CARLTON ASHE;
SGT DEBRA MCFADDEN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
DHO PATTERSON, Lee Corr Inst; WARDEN REYNOLDS, Lee Corr Inst;
SHAKE DOWN TEAM, at Lee Corr Inst/Turbeville; DHO BROWN, Turbeville
Corr Inst; W CHRISTOPHER SWETT, appointed counsel,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02358-RBH)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Decided: May 26, 2017

Appeal: 17-6320

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis L. King, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6320

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King 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. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. King v. McPherson, No. 0:15-cv-02358-RBH (D.S.C.
Feb. 7, 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

3